Is US Preparing For War Against China?

Print Friendly

After writing the comments below, I learned that the US defied Chinese flew into a no-fly zone near China.  The Hill reports: ”

A pair of American B-52 bombers flew unannounced into a recently established Chinese no-fly zone in the East China Sea, in a direct rebuke of Beijing’s asserted authority over the area. The bombers, based out of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, entered the contested airspace as part of a training operation dubbed Coal Lightning, according to The Wall Street Journal.”

President Obama has been moving the US military into Asia in what has been dubbed the “Asia Pivot.”  He is moving 60% of the US Navy to the region along with other military resources.  At the same time there is more propaganda in the US media that is building fear against China like the article below from USA Today.  The US is pushing Japan to have a military something not allowed by the Japanese Constitution since World War II.  The US is supplying Japan with drones and saying the US will defend Japan if it is attacked by China. Was the decision not to go to war and seek a negotiated settlement with Iran part of an effort to focus the US military on China?   The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which has been described as a global corporate coup, is being negotiated with Pacific nations but does not include China.  Is one of the goals to isolate and weaken China economically?

A war with China sounds like an absurd, really insane, plan but Americans who oppose war need to wake up to that possibility and begin to organize against it. US News and World Report ran an article in 2011 saying war between the US and China may be inevitable.  The Diplomat ran a five part series on the nightmare scenario of US was with China. The US and Japan have conducted war games off of California simulating an attack on China, Australia joined the two countries in war games as well and the US and Philippines have run war games in the South China Sea. China’s economy will be larger than the economy of the US in the foreseeable future. Can US leaders accept China being a larger economic giant than the United States?  Perhaps this is the United States trying to pull China into an arms race that will hurt the Chinese economy while benefiting the US armaments industry, just a the Cold War with Russia did.  Or, perhaps it is to create an opportunity for the US to bomb China and undermine its economy?

No doubt the Asian Pivot is designed to threaten and contain China while asserting US power in the region.  But how far will the Pentagon go? It is impossible to completely predict what the US Empire is planning but it is important for activists who oppose war to monitor this closely and oppose military action against China. Indeed the US should be pivoting out of the world military, closing foreign bases and returning home to focus on rebuilding the United States and our economy. The Pentagon should be reduced to a size needed for the real defense of the nation, not a military used for offensive military actions anywhere in the world.

KZ

Pentagon builds forces in Pacific, eyes China

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY, November 25, 2013
The Enola Gay the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Associated Press.

The Enola Gay the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Associated Press.

Story Highlights

  • Missiles extend China’s reach in the Pacific, threaten Japan
  • Pentagon strategists hope to keep China guessing
  • Moves are another part of U.S. ‘pivot’ to Asia

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is fortifying bases in the Pacific and looking to revive World War II-era air bases as part of an effort to survive a Chinese missile attack that could wipe out critical installations on Okinawa and elsewhere, military records, interviews and congressional testimony show.

The strategy indicates the evolution of the administration’s shift toward Asia, which includes the creation of a growing base in northern Australia. Chinese missiles have been a preoccupation of Pentagon planners who worry they could be used as a threat to deny access to the region by U.S. ships, planes and troops.

Chinese ballistic missiles — termed anti-access, area denial weapons — mean that virtually every U.S. base in the Pacific is under “heavy threat,” said Michael Lostumbo, director of the RAND Center for Asia Pacific Study. A RAND report found that 90% of the bases were within 1,080 nautical miles of China, the distance it defined as being under heavy threat.

“We compared threats in the Pacific region with other regions,” Lostumbo said. “The Pacific bases are all under threat if you are considering Chinese ballistic missiles.”

RAND identified three options for dealing with the threat: moving bases out of missile range, hardening aircraft hangars and dispersing aircraft to limit the damage any one attack could exact.

Pentagon strategists are re-examining bases such as Kadena on Okinawa because its proximity to China makes it particularly vulnerable, a senior officer said. The other reason to explore options, according to another senior officer, is to disrupt planning by the Chinese military and keep it guessing. Both officers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Among recent developments with U.S. forces in Asia:

Darwin, Australia. The Marine Corps is beefing up its presence. The first deployment of 200 Marines occurred last year. The goal, says Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine spokesman, is to rotate as many as 2,500 Marines to the base as part of an air-ground task force.

“This rotational basis allows for Marines to be present in the region without large basing requirements,” Flanagan said in an e-mail. “We won’t need big mess halls, exchanges or other military base comforts, lessening the cost of having Marines in the region.”

Guam. Since 2000, the Pentagon has been bolstering forces on the westernmost U.S. territory, according to the Congressional Research Service. About 8,000 Marines based on Okinawa are slated to move there. The buildup and regular military exercises concern the Chinese, the service said in a report dated Nov. 15. The island has two important U.S. bases: Apra for the Navy and Andersen for the Air Force.

For the Pentagon, a key concern on Guam is an attack by Chinese or North Korean missiles, the report says. That is reflected in requests for hundreds of millions of dollars to fortify fuel bunkers and airplane hangars. The Air Force seeks a “hardened facility” for its bombers, cargo and tankers. The hangar would have a concrete roof and walls with a thickness of 3½ feet, according to budget documents.

Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh told Congress this month that the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific has asked for the protection in the event of a missile attack. Welsh put the cost at $256 million for the new fortifications.

“The hardened facilities on Guam are in response to a combatant commander request to provide more resilient capability on Guam because of an increased threat of surface-to-surface missile attack,” Welsh said. “He didn’t request that everything be hardened, just those things that are key facilities that you couldn’t improvise if there was damage.”

Tinian and Saipan. Two islands in the North Pacific, U.S. territory not far from Guam, could be candidates for dispersing aircraft among a number of bases, according to the Pentagon. The Air Force seeks more than $115 million to build infrastructure on Saipan. The intent, according to budget documents, is to use the island for exercises and as emergency landing strips in case of bad weather.

The islands have long held strategic importance to the U.S. military. In World War II, American troops seized them from Japanese forces in 1944 and set up a sprawling base on Tinian for B-29 bombers to strike Japan. The Enola Gay and Bock’s Car flew from Tinian in August 1945 to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Follow @tvandenbrook on Twitter.

  • mkb0029

    I wonder how the U.S. would respond to Chinese bombers flying off the west coast of the U.S.. I can imagine that the Chinese might send up their warplanes to tail U.S. aircraft over the region in question. Provocative?

    • Southernfink

      Excellent point, the US has quite a reputation for applying a double standard’s. Looking at the false logic applied for it’s drone assassinations several continents away targeting innocent people based on purported associations, ethnicity and appearances, armed man with no possible means of striking into the US itself, nor ever validating the reasons for the drone strikes itself.
      Chinese bombers flying a similar distance from the US coast would have been cause for major reaction…Provocative indeed, just because they do not wish to be part of the TPP should not lead to bombers straying into their airspace.

  • Southernfink

    The US led TPP was designed so that corporations can continue to grow economically by making government’s accountable to them, China does not want to become involved with the TPP as that would mean having to privatize it’s state owned assett’s…China decision not to join the TPP stands in the way of economic growth for TPP corporations.
    Nobel for Peace ?

    • Bighead1883

      Hey SF,give it to em.

      • Southernfink

        Glad to notice you found this site BH, it’s a wealth of information, the articles are being re-posted all over the place with good response, IA I found is rather ”centrist”…

        • Bighead1883

          Well centrist is good,slightly left is better and Socialist is excellent,but hey as long as we get the LNP out of power that`s the main aim SF

          • Southernfink

            I find the TPP is amounting to treason, and thought it was worth a shot, IA is rather centrist if not right winged, as they do not appear to be wanting to expose the TPP like they could, maybe those new police laws play a factor in that.

        • Solid State Max

          I checked this site out myself and came across TAFTA that I haven’t heard about before. It seems that both TAFTA and TPP are being fast-tracked as we speak.

          • Margaret Flowers

            TAFTA negotiations just started in July of this year. The TPP is completing negotiations. The next round of meetings is in Singapore in Dec. Congress has not introduced fast track legislation yet so we need to keep pressure on them so they don’t. See FlushtheTPP.org.

          • Solid State Max

            Normally, I would think that between July and now is more than enough time to finalize TAFTA but given how “free trade” gets packaged, bloated, and finally passed, I think I can now see why TAFTA will probably come up sometime next year. Perhaps Congress might push TAFTA to 2015 for the sake of getting undeservedly reelected on Nov 2014. Speaking of China, if the US had to declare war against China, the first thing it would have to do is cancel China PNTR.

          • Southernfink

            My earlier reply to you had a link in it and appears to have gone missing, looks like every single trade deal is alway’s fast tracked, even CAFTA 217-215 with two people not present, Part of the XL pipeline were fast tracked, then there is TTIP
            Too many trade deals with similar abbreviations TAFTA for example stands for both the Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement but also for the Thailand Australia Free Trade Agreement
            I’ll get back to you on another site and post the link I meant to send earlier on.

  • Bighead1883

    Idiocy for idiots by idiots.
    This is what money wants,the chance of destruction
    But the US has been looking for an enemy because they are a sick money everything society

  • Rich39

    I believe we could be making or creating another Tonkin Gulf incident.i
    Remember the lies we told to start the Vietnam War?

  • Solid State Max

    It’s been a mystery to me on how these “free trade” pacts always make it by even when they get that close enough. Perhaps it’s not just the money that’s at work but the way business and global elites are able to successfully get enough people to lower their standards or expectations at large. The only good thing I might be seeing people waking up to is the fact that most of what’s in most of these pacts have nothing to do with trade. Policies such as SOPA, power for more corporate lawsuits, and those pertaining to “copyright” that wouldn’t pass on its own always make it to the “free trade” pact bunkers as I like to call them.

    • Southernfink

      The big political parties are duopolies, run like a corporation with a CEO at the top, ”Don’t step out of line and all will be fine” There’s strength in numbers as it ensures political survival. A big strong party will attract lots of attention and funding leaving the alternatives underfunded and even arrested for arriving at the big debate, that’s what has to change in the US, as corporate spending is a major factor. Therefore the weapon of choice for the alternatives has to be the use of logic.
      BTW, what did you make of the list ? it’s one thing to have the list but here is the tricky bit…how can it be verified that the corporations listed are indeed participants of the negotiations taking place ?

  • kevinzeese

    The trade deficit is the result of poor management of the US economy by the people in charge. Surely you are not suggesting war with China because they run their economy better than the US does? I hope not!

    Chinese history, unlike the US, shows no signs of imperialism. There is no reason to think they have a grander design. It does not seem to be in the culture of their foreign policy.

    • Jonathan D Waters

      I do agree that we do have poor management of our economy, but I do wonder about motive when it comes to the possible military buildup in China. I am not so sure for something and I can’t put my finger on it, is leading me to think that they may make a military move in our life time. Maybe toward the Middle East, the Pacific Area and or Indochina. I do hope you’re correct and that they are benign.

      • kevinzeese

        The Chinese military build-up is tiny compared to the US. And, it is in response to the US. If the US not moving 60% of its Navy, building bases, strengthening military pacts in the region, doing war games practicing to attack China — there would not be a military build-up. But, with the US taking all those actions, does China have any choice?