赤城温泉宾馆哪家好:US should not hysteric about China first airc...

来源：百度文库 编辑：九乡新闻网 时间：2024/07/08 19:17:41

US should not hysteric about China first aircraft carrier


3434.jpg (72.02 KB)
2011-4-28 09:59

In 1966, Hollywood produced a Cold War comedy about a Russian submarine becoming stranded on the shoals of a small New England town. It was a good movie and it nicely captured the misplaced hysteria of the era about Soviet military intentions. It was called The Russians Are Coming!


Now get ready for the Chinese version: not a new movie, but a revived hysteria. China is about to put into operation its first aircraft carrier, rumored to be called Shi Lang, after a seventeenth century admiral who conquered Taiwan. Previously known as the Varyag when it was under construction for the Soviet and later the Ukrainian navies, China acquired the uncompleted carrier in 1998 at auction for $20 million.


Officially, China was cagey about its intentions for the aircraft carrier. Chinese sources say that there was considerable debate internally over the risks and benefits of acquiring a single carrier or two. On the benefit side are the prestige and sense of having “arrived” as a power. More practically, a test run with a carrier will give the PLAN a more precise estimate of the costs, training, and operational adjustments needed to deploy such a capability effectively, before deciding on additions. For some, the carrier will reduce the difficulties of defending extended Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea.


As for the risks, some Chinese argued that carriers are not economically or strategically wise in an era of enhanced conventional threats against carrier battle groups. Moreover, a carrier battle group will reinforce suspicions among China’s neighbors of its hostile intent.


It is now clear from gradually released official Chinese statements and news reports that the advocates of carriers won the debate, at least temporarily. Beijing has dribbled out hints that the carrier is coming, possibly out of concern for the reactions of its neighbors, including their own acquisitions for defense against a new perceived threat. It would be wise for Beijing to be cautious about over selling its development too, because of the formidable challenges learning to use carrier capabilities will pose to the PLAN.


Senior American naval officers and many of their colleagues in Asian navies regard the carrier as a manageable threat even if Beijing can learn how to deploy it. Some joke that they hope China will acquire five more battle groups and waste even more money that could go into other, more threatening systems. All say that they will watch China’s efforts at implementation this year closely.


In an interview with Bloomberg, Pacific Commander Admiral Robert Willard recently dismissed the impact of the carrier as largely “symbolic,” but he added that “based on the feedback that we received from our partners and allies in the Pacific, I think the change in perception by the region will be significant.”


For decades, regional states friendly to the United States and suspicious of China have seen American carriers as reassuringly symbolizing the U.S. ability to deter China from aggression against them. This was strongly reinforced in 1996, when former President Clinton dispatched two battle groups to waters near Taiwan in reaction to Beijng’s missile “exercises” intended to intimidate Taipei.


If Beijing, as seems likely, ultimately chooses to use the carrier in operations in the South China Sea, where the United States is a self-professed guarantor of freedom of navigation but not a claimant, some other claimant states may feel the weight of China’s military more acutely than they have in centuries.


All this indicates that Washington and the Pacific Command need to deploy a strategy of regional reassurance as the Chinese carrier itself deploys. One element of this strategy would be to use hearings and public forums to make clear that China’s carrier is vulnerable to counter measures that the United States and its allies already possess. A second element will be public diplomacy that includes regular and high-profile deployments and exercises by American forces in the region.


China can be expected to be as cautious as it has been up to now in revealing its new capability in the hope of reducing resistance and gaining acceptance of a new status for the PLAN.


But Beijing will also be tempted to steam its carrier close to Vietnam and perhaps other countries to send a tougher message to neighbors it thinks are too small to be uppity with China. In turn, these neighbors will have to choose between appeasement and deeper entanglement with the United States. And Washington may have to pick and choose those with whom it wishes to get more deeply entangled.


In sum, it makes sense not to overreact to China’s attempt at acquiring a capability already possessed by many countries and which may be in its waning days of war fighting utility anyway. At the same time, it will be necessary to address the perception gap between defense professionals and leaders and the publics in Asia while thinking ahead about some of the choices to come. Maybe there’s a movie to be made. (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)
US should not hysteric about China first airc... US should not threaten balance in China relat... US should not monopolize cyber affairs US should not monopolize cyber affairs [] US should not monopolize cyber affairs - Peop...[] China, US not strategic rivals China, US should boost world's confidence China, US should boost world's confidence [] Starting a war? China should not do that easily! US should avoid war with a rising China What explanation does US need about China's a... China: US meddling not welcomed - People's Da... China is not what US was in 1945! - Focus dis... China urges US to avoid harming trade, not to... About china People first, not GDP Pancreatitis patients should or should not love Gillard flubs her lines: not even US puts China in a corner US: Abandon Taiwan or not? China-US diplomatic It's all about love, not money US should stop Taipei arms sales US should draw lessons from arms race Should US Be Afraid of the Chinese?