Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group.
Breaking Defense: DoD War Games Predict ‘Extremely Destabilizing’ Chinese Military Parity
"If we do come to blows with China, it's gonna be very confused for the first 30 or 45 days, and then we must fight in a distributed fashion," said Maj. Gen. Tracy King, Marine Corps’ director of Expeditionary Warfare.
WASHINGTON: Worried about America’s eroding dominance at sea, the Pentagon has been running through a series of war games to shake out a plan to stay ahead of the rapid-fire Chinese military modernization effort.
“The most destabilizing event in the 21st century is going to be when China can achieve conventional parity at a time and place of its choosing,” Maj. Gen. Tracy King, the Marine Corps’ Director of Expeditionary Warfare said during an online event today. “These war games are reinforcing that fact. So when they are able to do that, and when they can decide whether or not we’re going or fight or not, that’s going to be extremely destabilizing.”
In an attempt to forestall parity, the Navy and Pentagon leadership are working on a force structure plan that includes more unmanned ships, smaller vessels that would be harder to hit, and long-range weapons that could hold Chinese ships at a distance.
Part of the assessment includes a hard look at how the Navy and Marine Corps would get inside the A2/AD defenses China has built up along its coast and the island chains in the South China Sea.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I give it ten more years when we are at that point that China can easily dominate any US conventional military response in Asia.
WNU,
ReplyDeleteYou are right only if America is not making a strong building and not making any breakthrough.
Lets pump more billions into spending for military gear, works well for germany they felt contained befor the first world war. why is no one thinking it through, it will lead us to war, and what that means should be clear to everyone, destroying of human lifes, properties and so on. so we are spending billions, to destroy billions in values ,human cost of life not mentioned, of dollars. makes sense
ReplyDeleteAhhhhh..... Think you might be on the wrong blog site pal.
DeleteCan you see the heading at the top?
It says WAR NEWS UPDATES..
"Lets pump more billions into spending for military gear, works well for germany "
ReplyDeleteSuch a bad misreading of the history leasing up to WW1.]
Fun FACT France and England did not pump billions into military gear in the run up to WW1. Neither did Germany.
I wonder how France ended up with land and people where the land had German place names and the people spoke German all before the 20th century. Wow, that is a real poser.
0400 Is your post the reasoning you hear in a dive 10 minutes before closing time?
Dude you missing the point, germany felt sorrounded at that time you had england, france and russia closing in. and we germans thought a swift small war against france like in 1871/72 will do it and than get it on with russia to get out that encirclement. so yes they spent a fortune on military gear germany invested heavily in its marine building ships and etc.. England had the biggest military at that time, they were spendinga lot maybe you think billions is the wrong word but they had to sustain the biggest navy fleet on earth to that time how does this not come with a pricetag?
ReplyDeletebut thats not the point, the point is spending billions in military gear to contain someone will lead to war.
1870/71
ReplyDeleteand not all readers living in the same timezone "0400 Is your post the reasoning you hear in a dive 10 minutes before closing time?"or maybe you didnt know that no offense
funfact regions between germany and france swapped several times in the last 300 years just mentioning elsaß lothringen
ReplyDeleteLorraine going to France is nothing but imperialism/colonialism whether monarhical or Republican form of government.
ReplyDeleteIt was done by force by France over 300 years and solely by France except for 1 brief interlude 1871.
Today's wars are predicated on past wears and grievnces.
ReplyDelete0755, you are not much of a professional historian, armchair history, or much of anything at all.