US model for future war has China paying close attention.

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

4 posts / 0 new

Truly, there is a vast number of crises that are causing us great concern these days, but here is a heads-up article in the Washington Post which explains one of the most immediate deal-breakers, unless we get solid, brilliant, diplomatic REALISTS into all of our top government positions of leadership.

If we purposely demonize and provoke other countries that have high level nuclear weapons technology, we might all wake up one day to about ten minutes of global war. All of the other worrles and problems will be immediately blown away!

Quote Washington Post, 8/1/12:U.S. model for a future war fans tensions
with China and inside Pentagon

When President Obama called on the U.S. military to shift its focus to Asia earlier this year, Andrew Marshall, a 91-year-old futurist, had a vision of what to do.

Marshall’s small office in the Pentagon has spent the past two decades planning for a war against an angry, aggressive and heavily armed China.

No one had any idea how the war would start. But the American response, laid out in a concept that one of Marshall’s longtime proteges dubbed “Air-Sea Battle,” was clear.

Stealthy American bombers and submarines would knock out China’s long-range surveillance radar and precision missile systems located deep inside the country. The initial “blinding campaign” would be followed by a larger air and naval assault.

The concept, the details of which are classified, has angered the Chinese military and has been pilloried by some Army and Marine Corps officers as excessively expensive. Some Asia analysts worry that conventional strikes aimed at China could spark a nuclear war.

Air-Sea Battle drew little attention when U.S. troops were fighting and dying in large numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the military’s decade of battling insurgencies is ending, defense budgets are being cut, and top military officials, ordered to pivot toward Asia, are looking to Marshall’s office for ideas.

In recent months, the Air Force and Navy have come up with more than 200 initiatives they say they need to realize Air-Sea Battle. The list emerged, in part, from war games conducted by Marshall’s office and includes new weaponry and proposals to deepen cooperation between the Navy and the Air Force.

A former nuclear strategist, Marshall has spent the past 40 years running the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, searching for potential threats to American dominance. In the process, he has built a network of allies in Congress, in the defense industry, at think tanks and at the Pentagon that amounts to a permanent Washington bureaucracy.

While Marshall’s backers praise his office as a place where officials take the long view, ignoring passing Pentagon fads, critics see a dangerous tendency toward alarmism that is exaggerating the China threat to drive up defense spending.

“The old joke about the Office of Net Assessment is that it should be called the Office of Threat Inflation,” said Barry Posen, director of the MIT Security Studies Program. “They go well beyond exploring the worst cases. . . . They convince others to act as if the worst cases are inevitable.”

Marshall dismisses criticism that his office focuses too much on China as a future enemy, saying it is the Pentagon’s job to ponder worst-case scenarios.

“We tend to look at not very happy futures,” he said in a recent interview.

China tensions

Even as it has embraced Air-Sea Battle, the Pentagon has struggled to explain it without inflaming already tense relations with China. The result has been an information vacuum that has sown confusion and controversy.

Senior Chinese military officials warn that the Pentagon’s new effort could spark an arms race.

“If the U.S. military develops Air-Sea Battle to deal with the [People’s Liberation Army], the PLA will be forced to develop anti-Air-Sea Battle,” one officer, Col. Gaoyue Fan, said last year in a debate sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a defense think tank.

Pentagon officials counter that the concept is focused solely on defeating precision missile systems.

“It’s not about a specific actor,” a senior defense official told reporters last year. “It is not about a specific regime.”

The heads of the Air Force and Navy, meanwhile, have maintained that Air-Sea Battle has applications even beyond combat. The concept could help the military reach melting ice caps in the Arctic Circle or a melted-down nuclear reactor in Japan, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the U.S. chief of naval operations, said in May at the Brookings Institution.

At the same event, Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief, upbraided a retired Marine colonel who asked how Air-Sea Battle might be employed in a war with China.

“This inclination to narrow down on a particular scenario is unhelpful,” Schwartz said.

Privately, senior Pentagon officials concede that Air-Sea Battle’s goal is to help U.S. forces weather an initial Chinese assault and counterattack to destroy sophisticated radar and missile systems built to keep U.S. ships away from China’s coastline.

Their concern is fueled by the steady growth in China’s defense spending, which has increased to as much as $180 billion a year, or about one-third of the Pentagon’s budget, and China’s increasingly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea.

“We want to put enough uncertainty in the minds of Chinese military planners that they would not want to take us on,” said a senior Navy official overseeing the service’s modernization efforts. “Air-Sea Battle is all about convincing the Chinese that we will win this competition.”

Like others quoted in this article, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Continue Reading Article...

Karolina's picture
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm


I'd explain how the US Federal government's legalization and taxation of Marijuana can diminish the possibility of global nuclear annihilation, but it won't make any difference as long as people like Andrew Marshall run our government.

These "worst-case scenarios" sometimes feel like self-fulfilling prophecies, and the United States are too young or arrogant (or just plain stupid, but I want to give them the benefit of the doubt) to understand the ultimate futility of it all.

Mutual Assured Destruction is the only term that defines a full-scale nuclear scenario with China, and it would be such a waste because a combination of the best aspects of both societies could create something amazing for the world, but we will only achieve that through an exchange of knowledge and ideas, not thermonuclear payloads.

Also, is anyone else bothered by the words, "91-year-old futurist"? That just seems to be a slight contradiction.

JTaylor's picture
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

More toys for the military boys to blow up means big profits for the military industrial complex. Tell Marshall to shove it.

captbebops's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

In my mind there are two possible futures in this context:

1. The wastes of the Military/Industrial Complex, in both lost dollars and the loss of the investment value of those dollars. (the far greater figure) Think of what things would have been like today if we'd cut the Pentagon budget by $300 billion in 2001 - $300 billion adjusted by inflation times 12? Add in compound interest on the bonds? Call that $7 trillion from the national debt. (about half)

2. On the other hand - China has over a billion people. They have no soil and no drinkable water. The only resources they can trade for food are consumer goods produced by slave labor. The only other resources they have are US treasury notes, foreign stocks and real estate, and their army. Now, what happens when the US and world economy collapses, as it will? When world food production collapses and no one has enough food to eat, much less sell, as it will? Soon. Hint: China is alleged to spend $180 billion a year on their military - does that include profits from their army's foreign investments? If I were a responsible US government official I would assume that China will start a war about the end of the decade - the question is with who, and whether we can avoid involvement. (frankly, after the last 12 years will we be able to be involved?)

doh1304's picture
Dec. 6, 2010 10:49 am

There's a 1 in 20 Chance of the Apocalypse. Shouldn't We Act Now?

A new study published in Science argues that we as a civilization need to move "rapidly" -- as in almost immediately -- towards a carbon emissions free future if we are to have any chance of holding off runaway global warming:

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system