U.S. military planners are caught in an impossible dilemma.
By Franz-Stefan Gady, an associate fellow for cyber power and future conflict at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.Four camouflage military vehicles with missiles perched on their surfaces are seen from above on a lined concrete lot.Intermediate-range ballistic missile launchers are seen at a military parade in Beijing on Sept. 3, 2015. Xinhua/Cha Chunming via Getty Images
U.S. military planners are caught in an impossible dilemma.
Franz-Stefan Gady,
an associate fellow for cyber power and future conflict at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.Four camouflage military vehicles with missiles perched on their surfaces are seen from above on a lined concrete lot.Intermediate-range ballistic missile launchers are seen at a military parade in Beijing on Sept. 3, 2015. Xinhua/Cha Chunming via Getty Images
Imagine China launching an invasion of Taiwan, and the United States decides to come to the island’s defense. Following the Pentagon’s doctrine and operational concepts for fighting such a war, the U.S. Navy and Air Force launch thousands of long-range missiles against Chinese ships, command centers, and logistics hubs. In the opening strikes alone, more than 33,000 precision-guided munitions target over 8,500 locations. Cyberattacks decimate Chinese military networks and paralyze the leadership. Beijing is forced to retreat or face defeat in what appears to be a swift, decisive U.S. success. Few U.S. lives are lost in this rapid, technology-driven triumph.
If this seems like the ideal scenario to you, you’d be wrong. For as precision strikes destroy Chinese missile launchers, command centers, and communications networks, Beijing’s military leaders face cascading military failures even as they are isolated by degraded communications. In a moment of panic about the rapid success of their adversary, the Chinese leadership may well consider vertical escalation—the use of nuclear weapons—before its remaining capabilities are eliminated. Beijing might authorize a demonstration nuclear strike over open waters as a signal of resolve and as an attempt to halt U.S. operations. It is then unclear whether Washington will interpret such a demonstration as justification for preemptive nuclear strikes against remaining Chinese capabilities.
Imagine China launching an invasion of Taiwan, and the United States decides to come to the island’s defense. Following the Pentagon’s doctrine and operational concepts for fighting such a war, the U.S. Navy and Air Force launch thousands of long-range missiles against Chinese ships, command centers, and logistics hubs. In the opening strikes alone, more than 33,000 precision-guided munitions target over 8,500 locations. Cyberattacks decimate Chinese military networks and paralyze the leadership. Beijing is forced to retreat or face defeat in what appears to be a swift, decisive U.S. success. Few U.S. lives are lost in this rapid, technology-driven triumph.
If this seems like the ideal scenario to you, you’d be wrong. For as precision strikes destroy Chinese missile launchers, command centers, and communications networks, Beijing’s military leaders face cascading military failures even as they are isolated by degraded communications. In a moment of panic about the rapid success of their adversary, the Chinese leadership may well consider vertical escalation—the use of nuclear weapons—before its remaining capabilities are eliminated. Beijing might authorize a demonstration nuclear strike over open waters as a signal of resolve and as an attempt to halt U.S. operations. It is then unclear whether Washington will interpret such a demonstration as justification for preemptive nuclear strikes against remaining Chinese capabilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment