The American Spectator : China Prepares

Text Size

China Prepares

By George H. Wittman on 11.12.10 @ 6:07AM

China is expanding in all directions, including deeper into space.

It may be a bit unfair to Chinese technical competence, but there is good reason to track the spurt of China's current military sophistication to the Clinton Administration's sale of Cray supercomputers to Beijing in the 1990s. (Paralleled, of course, by the PRC's accelerated program of technical secret stealing during the same period and later.) In any event, Chinese strategic weapon development now seeks to arrive at a point where it can challenge American superiority. Whether China can attain its objective in any reasonable future is the question.

Signs of growing Chinese military capability came about again only a few months ago when the latest generation of the Dong Feng 21 D missile was recognized as operational. U.S. Navy estimates place this medium-range land-to-sea missile as being accurate up to 900 miles. This has been referred to as a carrier-killer weapon that is aimed to counter U.S. Navy domination of East Asian waters. One development such as this doesn't have the ability, in itself, to alter the balance of power in this portion of the Pacific, but it can present a new and important factor in threatening the defense of Taiwan.

Beijing's enhanced missile capacity is only part of a series of weapon systems that China is in the process of developing -- most of which reflects a belief in its need to counter U.S. influence in the Pacific regions. Beijing's strategy is centered on the development of a "blue water" operational strength. Just how "blue" really depends on how the Peoples' Liberation Army – Navy (PLAN) sees its role. Its prime considerations are maintaining and increasing their offensive ability to attack Taiwan and on the defensive side to protect China's oil pipeline from the Middle East.

Last Spring the PLAN sent a ten-ship battle group of destroyers, frigates, and submarines into the Pacific through the channels between Okinawa and the Miyako Islands. This was not the first time such a maneuver occurred, but it certainly was the largest. Along with an accelerated program of development of Jin class submarines, there continues to be a highly prioritized target of aircraft carrier construction. These ambitions clearly reflect Beijing's desire to build a naval force capable of projecting China's military power beyond its oft-stated defensive coastal role.

Japan, through its defense minister, Toshimi Kitayawa, already has declared China's fleet operations to be "unprecedented" and indicated that Tokyo would have to assess whether these actions had any belligerent intent toward Japan. That was as close to a formal demarche the Japanese were willing to present on the subject of PRC force projection into near Japanese waters. Of perhaps even greater importance to China, however, is the need to build a naval presence off its island of Hainan (a main PLAN submarine base) and the vital sea-lanes of the South China Sea that it seeks to have recognized as its private pond.

Perhaps the area of most critical concern for Washington, and indeed also Moscow, is China's commitment to stretch its technological and strategic ambitions in space. The PRC's second lunar probe sent back high resolution images of the moon that the Chinese intend to use to determine just how and where they are going to place their unmanned landing in 2013. Seven years later, in 2020, Beijing states it will have completed its own space station -- with no one's help, they remind the world.

The real importance of this space plan has as much to do with international prestige and domestic morale as it does any real technological breakthrough. After all, the U.S. and Russia already have built a space station. What is a strategic objective of long-term import, however, is the notice that China is giving to the rest of the world that it intends to press forward with its own expeditions into deep space.

Perhaps of even higher immediate priority is the Chinese program to focus on the creation of new generations of smaller satellites for military purposes. These new satellites are being planned to act both defensively and offensively. They supposedly will have the ability to protect existing Chinese spy satellites or interfere with the operations of adversarial nations' own space-borne military facilities.

Commentators in the West and Russia already have noted their expectations of Chinese efforts to build a forward base on the moon to aid it in deep space exploration. The Chinese, themselves, have not been shy about such long term potential for their programs.

In the meantime, the ever-commercially savvy trade officials in Beijing are aggressively selling their competitively priced communications satellites in the developing world. From a strategic planning standpoint, space-related projects are definitely win-win for the Chinese. China's planners are moving at high speed in all strategic military areas -- short through long term -- pushing their country out front on the world scene.

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (18) | Leave a comment

davelnaf| 11.12.10 @ 9:43AM

China’s economic progress and its military and space build-up would be more impressive if it hadn’t been done with so much bought, borrowed, and stolen technology. People who believe that China will eventually moderate and become a positive force in the world are missing the point of what it is trying to do. It is moving as fast as it can to reach a certain point in its development where it can safely do without the rest of the world or put the rest of the world in some kind of permanent dependent position (or at least accept the current status quo in matters of trade). Americans who believe that China will someday allow the kind of access to their market that they have to ours are having a prolonged daydream.

Alan Brooks| 11.12.10 @ 11:35PM

The Chinese know how to make the trains run on time.

Christopher Holland| 11.14.10 @ 7:42PM

It doesn't take much to impress you, does it.

Howard McCarthy| 11.13.10 @ 3:07PM

There is a terrible misunderstanding among most Americans, including many of the educated, about China. China has many of the best scientists and engineers in the world. They are capable of technological achievements the equal of the US or any other nation. Their human capital is huge. 1.3 billion people used to hard work, studying hard and achieving. I studied at a chinese university. I acted in a major chinese film about their space program (Wen Ding Chang Tian) and lived at the PLA base at the satellite launch center (Xichang).
The communist party of China wants to stay in power and they know that they must deliver economic development and rising living standards in order to remain in power. War does not figure in their program.

Occam's Tool| 11.14.10 @ 1:18AM

Yes, they are quite fine---and shackled by a government inimical to good research. 0 Nobel science prizes. In addition, their population is imploding. We have to contain China, but long term we'll win.

Pelligrino| 11.17.10 @ 4:22AM

Mr. McCarthy, interesting comments but I would have a whole host of questions for you about Chinese leadership intentions.

I could write for pages...but I'll leave it to one short statement.

It is very difficult for me to believe that their goals and aspirations regionally and globally are benvolent given the way they treat their own people.

We don't even begin to know that it is like. You certainly would not have been exposed to real Chinese life.

As a foreigner, you were constantly watched. They controlled who you knew, what you saw, and who you associated with. The dossiers on you -- throughout your time there -- were regularly updated and have been well maintained.

They probably continue to "keep up with you," yes? (whether you know it or not)

Or are you trying to tell me this isn't so?

No nation that engages in that kind of behavior has altruistic motives for its near or long term goals.

And...they'd have more than 1+ billion people if they did not force abortions, force a focus on male babies, and do monstrous acts to parents who have more than one.

Or is that irrelevant to you?

Factis| 11.14.10 @ 6:16AM

The truth is most export and import trade barriers come from the U.S. itself. In this day and age of rapid progress, it would be incredibly foolish for any country to reinvent the wheel. Developing nations that show any kind technological progress must catch up and must show their own ingenuity in order to do so because no one including the U.S. gives away this knowledge even though you may try to take credit for it. You need take your head out of the sand by providing specific instances for your baseless argument.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 11.12.10 @ 11:59AM

I'll believe it, and be impressed by their Space program the day that China returns from the Moon with one our American flags in tow as a trophy. Until that day though, they're all talk, and no action, just like the Soviet Union used to be. Remember the Space race with them don't you? Yeah, nobody remembers who came in second place, because nobody has, yet. Some race!!

Nicolas Ziener_France| 11.16.10 @ 4:08PM

This was the past, today it's different, today is always different

Nose Hit| 11.12.10 @ 12:40PM

China is certainly not freedom's friend, so we must be wary of their efforts to militarize space, and I wouldn't underestimate them. The worst attitude to have about an opponent is to believe they can't win.

Here's an historical "joke" I read in 2002, which is quite appropriate now, given that our space shuttle is going up one last time. Enjoy--

The US standard railroad gauge (the distance between rails) is 4 ‘ 8.5”, an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used?

Because that’s the way they built them in England, and the English built the US railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?

Because the first railroad lines were built by people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that is the gauge they used.

Why did they use that particular gauge?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used the same wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on the old long distance roads in England, because that’s the spacing of the wheel ruts in the granite roads.

So, who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. Their roads have been used ever since.

And, the ruts in the road?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone had to match for fear of destroying the wagon wheels. Since wheels were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they all had the same wheel spacing.

The US standard railroad gauge of 4’ 8.5” is derived from the specs for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

The Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.

Cut to the present.

The space shuttle sitting on its launch pad has two booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are two solid rocket boosters, or SRB’s. Thiokol makes the SRB’s at its factory in Utah.

The engineers who designed the SRB’s wanted to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB’s had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.

The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRB’s had to fit through the tunnel which is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horse’s behinds.

So---a major design feature of what is arguably the world’s most advanced transportation system was determined 2,000 years ago by a horses ass.

Which is pretty much how government decisions are made.

Explosion Proof Light| 11.13.10 @ 12:30AM

For most Americans, Obama doesn't seem to be giving them something they don't have, but instead to be taking away something they already value.

Anthony| 11.13.10 @ 9:44AM

Who is this guy? If this is an original piece, sign this young man to a long term deal. Excellent writing.

believer| 11.12.10 @ 7:48PM

Throughout recorded History Empires have risen and fallen, Had America not started down the road to socialism and free trade we might have lasted as long as Rome. However when our Presidents allow Chinese junk in without tarrifs and sells and or gives our finest military secrets as a token of friendship, The greatest Nation in the history of the world becomes a servant to our debt , before Clinton shared our missile guidance system with China their missiles would miss the target by a couple hundred miles, now Clinton is a hero and China is about to overtake us as the worlds biggest ecomomy and Congress is to busy worrying about Homosexual rights in the military to pay attention.

Bogdan from Australia| 11.14.10 @ 5:28AM

Agree with you 100%.
As someone who has his best years wasted in communo-fascist Poland I have natural aversion to anything that stinks SOCIALIST.
On the other side I have also a natural love for everything that is FREE including the so called "FREE TRADE".
However the idea that the "trade " with totalitarian China where the salaries of workers are kept artificially low is a "free trade" is beyond ridicule and is no longer (if ever was) acceptable.
China's totalitarian regime has to its disposal so many political tools to stop any increase in America's goods being exported to China that there is NOTHING in that "exchange" that can be called FREE.
A few weeks before the 2008 election I read the article in Foreign Affairs by Henry Paulson "How To Deal With Modern China".
What a revolting blob of an "economic" vomit it was!
The moron tried to convince the reader that 270 billion trade deficit with Chi-Coms is somehow beneficial to the US.
Can anyone imagine a bigger nonsense?
There is no doubt that one of the most fundamental factors in yours country's efforts to save and rebuild America is balancing or rather liquidating that deficit.
It is simply a must!
How can the American leadership convince the American worker to give up on the minimum wage (necessary to boost employment) while at the same time accepting the competition from articially low paid Chinese half-slave?
Such a move would be not only deeply immoral but simply impossible to enforce.
If the US balances the trade with China (in any way necessary) the EURABIA will follow and the Chinese regime will either fold down or attempt to start some kind of war.
For that however it is still to weak.
Tomorrow it shall be different story.

Neil Not Armstrong| 11.15.10 @ 1:33AM

As far as China's unmanned lunar mission planned for 2013, I wonder how much hush-hush bribe money the US Government is paying China to keep quiet about the lack of Apollo junk supposedly on the moon surface. wink wink

What the Heck ,what's another few trillion paid to China to keep the US little dirty secret - the US is already in the hole for $13 trillion and getting deeper.

fundamentalist| 11.15.10 @ 12:53PM

Let's not fall into the same trap we lived in during the Cold War. Fear of Soviet success caused us to waste billions on unnecessary military spending. We should have known, had we been familiar with Ludwig Mises, that the USSR could not last. Military might depends completely on economic might, and economic might comes from private investment, not state planning and state investment. The Chinese are wasting huge amounts of wealth on military and space projects, just as the Soviets did. At one point the USSR spent 50% of gdp on the military.

If China becomes more like use, with more freedom for its people and a smaller government, we will have nothing to fear from them because they will adopt the same values that we have. But it appears that they have decided to follow the USSR by wasting the small amount of wealth they have recently gained by spending it on the military and space programs. That will only slow down their economic development and make sure they can never have a military that challenges ours. China needs to decide if it wants to be increasingly wealthier, or if it wants to have a brief moment in the sun as a military power, even though the spending on that military power destroys the rest of the nation's wealth.

Pelligrino| 11.17.10 @ 4:47AM

Thanks for the article. Please, more of the same.

As readers here, we need to all stay abreast of what China, India, and Indonesia are doing.

Other comments above seem to indicate an overall lack of concern about China's rapid progressions in the last two decades.

I do not share this.

The lesson I learned over and over again during the "Cold War" (and various associations with those behind the Iron Curtain) was that it was nearly always easy to like the commoner, the little guy in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, or Romania.

They weren't the problem. It was their evil leadership (and the blind, mindless but ruthless party devotees).

Is it any different in China today?

Their aims for space? I would take them seriously. I don't think they're bluffing at all.

On another topic, loosely related:

Why are all of our Western Universities (in North America and in W. Europe) inundated with Chinese students? (mostly at the graduate and higher levels) Why? I've been in two large university cities in the last decade. Out of every 14 students you cross paths with, one is inevitably from mainland China. (and they are all in the hard sciences, mathematics, IT studies, etc. and pursuing higher degrees)

They possess much-less-than-desirable language skills for the academics and life in their host countries, but they're there -- in force.

Spectator staff, please post an article on this topic. Why the invasion in "academia land?"