Some stream-of-consciousness: the more I think about China's growing precision strike capabilities (e.g., 300 IRBMs and 600(!) MRBMs, ALBMs, etc.) and read the PLA's strategic documents, the more unsuitable I think the A2/AD concept (which is ours, not theirs) really is.
Our thinkers project a bubble thrown up by China (who then sits inside it) which we (as the active participants) then try to get through to save Taiwan or the SCS, etc. So we work to figure out how we're going to penetrate it and operate inside it.
But that's not what their thinkers have in mind - rather, imagine wrecked bases and airfields, paralyzed C2, destroyed HQs, ships sunk at the pier, ports mined shut, etc. And a PLA with the freedom of action to then carry out its plans with little opposition or interference.
They are going to go first & big - just read their works. The PLA's 2006 Science of Campaigns uses variations of "preempt" 15 times, "surprise" 110 times, "sudden" 246, "paralyze" 93, "seize" 231, and "strike" 942 times.
They don't just mention this stuff, it's their core idea.
They don't just mention this stuff, it's their core idea.
The more recent 2013 Science of Military Strategy, at half the length, mentions preemption 30 times.
We should remember that the PLA force we're seeing take shape today may well be built on views like these, worked out by the PLA's thinkers 15 years ago (or more).
We should remember that the PLA force we're seeing take shape today may well be built on views like these, worked out by the PLA's thinkers 15 years ago (or more).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
