【国家利益20131101】How to Win a War with China 如何打败中国?

diver18

How to Win a War with China

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-win-war-china-9346
Sean Mirski | November 1, 2013

宙斯盾作战系统
The USS Lake Erie (CG 70) launches a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block 1B missile during a Missile Defense Agency and U.S. Navy test Sept. 18, 2013.

The mounting challenge presented by China’s military modernization has led the United States to review existing military strategies and to conceptualize new ones, as illustrated by the ongoing debate over AirSea Battle (ASB), a new concept of operations put forward by the Department of Defense. But in the universe of possible strategies, the idea of a naval blockade deserves greater scrutiny. By prosecuting a naval blockade, the United States would leverage China’s intense dependence on foreign trade—particularly oil—to debilitate the Chinese state. A carefully organized blockade could thus serve as a powerful instrument of American military power that contributes to overcoming the pressing challenge of China’s formidable anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) system. A blockade could also be easily paired with alternate military strategies, including those based on ASB.

In the context of a Sino-American war, the United States could try to take China’s greatest national strength—its export-oriented, booming economic-growth model—and transform it into a major military weakness. To do so, the United States would implement a naval blockade of China that attempted to choke off most of China’s maritime trade. Under the right conditions, the United States might be able to secure victory by debilitating China’s economy severely enough to bring it to the negotiating table.

Yet until recently, a blockade strategy was largely overlooked, perhaps because economic warfare strategies seem inherently misguided given the close commercial ties between China and the United States. But if a serious conflict between the two nations erupted, then their immediate security interests would quickly override their trade interdependence and wreak enormous economic damage on both sides, regardless of whether a blockade were employed.

Even if a blockade is never executed, its viability would still impact American and Chinese policies for deterrence reasons. The United States’ regional strategy is predicated on the belief that a favorable military balance deters attempts to change the status quo by force, thus reassuring allies and upholding strategic stability. The viability of a blockade influences this calculus, and can accordingly affect American and Chinese actions—both military and nonmilitary—that are based on perceptions of it. If a naval blockade is a feasible strategy, it strengthens the American system of deterrence and dilutes any potential attempts by China to coerce the United States or its allies. Moreover, if a blockade’s viability can be clearly enunciated, it would also enhance crisis stability and dampen the prospects of escalation due to misunderstandings—on either side—about the regional balance of power. In short, as Elbridge Colby put it: “the old saw remains true, that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it.”

While a blockade is not a priori impossible or irrelevant in any situation, it is also not a ready tool in the American arsenal and would be feasible mainly within certain boundaries. Most importantly, many commentators miss the fact that a blockade is a context-dependent strategy, one that crucially depends on the regional environment.

The Strategic Context

A blockade would not be employed lightly by the United States, given its significant potential costs. Accordingly, Washington would likely only consider employing a blockade in a protracted conflict over vital interests; anything less would simply fail a basic cost-benefit analysis.

More importantly, though, a blockade strategy would depend on the cooperation of several third parties in the region. After all, China’s trade is borne on the seas largely as a result of economic considerations rather than physical limitations; if China were blockaded, it would turn to the countries on its borders for help.

。。。

---

如何打败中国：海上封锁
2013年11月06日 来源： 北京青年报
http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2013-11/06/c_125657615.htm

　　美国《国家利益》杂志网站11月1日刊文称，为战争做好准备可以威慑敌方，文章中的“假想敌”是中国。文章为美国如何击败中国献计称，美国应联合中国的邻国对中国实施海上封锁，以此摧毁中国经济，中国自然不战而败。

　　“出口拉动型经济是中国软肋”
　　该文章题目为“如何打赢与中国的战争”，文章共6页内容，对具体的战略和战术都予以解析。文章认为，中国海军现代化对美国构成威胁，美国有必要考虑击败中国的新战略。在各种战略中，海上封锁应获得较大关注。

　　文章指出，中国有出口拉动型经济增长模式，存在对中间产品和原材料的双重依赖，同时，国内创新水平较低。“中国的出口型经济很大程度上依赖进口中间产品，这一现象在高技术领域尤其明显。”文章认为，这些都是中国的软肋所在。为此，美国应对华进行海上封锁，阻断中国大部分海上贸易。

　　文章批判近年来美国对封锁战略的忽视，称“或许是因为中美商贸关系紧密”。文章表示，如果两国爆发严重冲突，那么，安全利益将很快凌驾于贸易上的互相依存。

　　文章认为，封锁战略的好处是可以与其他战略成双成对地使用，比如，美国国防部提出的海空一体化的战略可与其配套使用。

　　“提前拉拢有用的中国邻国”

　　文章将具体的操作方法也列举出来，认为可以通过近距离封锁和远距离封锁实现对华封锁的双保险。其中，近距离封锁是在敌方沿海部署军舰，对所有进出封锁圈的商船进行搜寻，扣押携带禁运品的船只。远程封锁可避免靠近敌方海岸所产生的军事危险，同时以类似于近距离封锁的方式切断敌方贸易。

　　当然，封锁战略将取决于中国周边国家的配合。文章认为，中国的许多邻国在战略上并不那么重要，需要重视的将是印度、日本和俄罗斯这样的大国。印度和日本可以协助美国切断中国在南面和东面的贸易路线。中国的另一个邻国俄罗斯将是成功封锁的关键。

　　文章承认，最有效的封锁也不可能彻底限制住中国的贸易，因为即使在理想的条件下，封锁得越严密，向中国出售产品的利润就越高。所以根据经济学中的供需法则，中国仍能获得关键的物资和资源。此外，中国可以利用其物资储备，加上有限的进口和国内生产，维持国家的运转。

　　那么，封锁的目的是什么呢？文章认为，借助于此，无论如何，中国的经济会遭受重创，这样一来美国可以迫使中国坐回谈判桌，从而获得胜利。

　　最后，文章在结论中表示，尽管困难重重，但在一定程度上，海上封锁中国在战术和战略上都是可行的。美国若能与印度、日本和俄罗斯组成最小同盟，那么中国将被遏制。

diver18

为什么有这一句？
dont give up the ship

噢，原来是类似撞沉吉野的故事：1813年美英海战。

Pentium_5

封锁吧，封锁个十年八年的！——上世纪朝鲜战争（抗美援朝）后，这块土地上的人们已经见识过米帝的海上封锁。正是由于封锁，这块土地上的人自己开发了大庆油田。

A blockade strategy, which functioned already after the Korean War, is no big deal. In fact, the best strategy to beat down China is the fostering of the the inside Fifth Column after the open-door policy.
朝鲜战争后即生效的海上封锁战略，没啥神乎其神的。其实，击败中国的最佳战略是开放后对其内部第五纵队的培植。