{"id":7066,"date":"2013-06-19T06:00:22","date_gmt":"2013-06-18T20:00:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=7066"},"modified":"2013-06-28T13:16:30","modified_gmt":"2013-06-28T03:16:30","slug":"uncertainty-chinas-rise-and-force-structure-planning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/uncertainty-chinas-rise-and-force-structure-planning\/","title":{"rendered":"Uncertainty, China\u2019s rise and force structure planning"},"content":{"rendered":"
When talking about current defence and security matters there seems strong agreement on at least one characteristic: that the future is uncertain<\/a>. Of course that’s true, and many things could potentially happen but, even so, what does this uncertainty mean for Defence?<\/p>\n Defence could choose a single future scenario, press on with that and hope for the best. A fundamental problem in basing force development on a particular anticipated future is that if those specific circumstances don’t eventuate, the force acquired might prove quite ineffective. This happened to Australia in the grim days of 1942. The inter-war emphasis on acquiring warships to be based in Singapore to undertake coalition naval operations<\/a> (PDF) proved completely inappropriate to the actual circumstances that eventuated. Precious time and resources were squandered preparing for an eventuality that didn’t happen, while consuming resources that could have created the force structure that was actually needed.<\/p>\n This force structure dilemma of being ill-prepared for the future that actually occurs is evident in the varying advice being given about the implications of the rise of China. Some say build a bigger defence force just in case<\/a>, others opt for going amphibious<\/a> (and in Japan<\/a> as well), others say engage but create a force structure around hedging<\/a> while others don\u2019t see the need for worrying<\/a> over a military response at all. These alternative courses reflect real uncertainty amongst professional analysts, defence staffs, foreign affairs specialists and commentators over whether China\u2019s rise will be peaceful or not\u2014and what the appropriate response is if not. It seems that realists fear that war’s inevitable while liberal thinkers see much value<\/a> in deep economic integration with the People\u2019s Republic. The real answer is that no one yet knows; there are many possible futures, depending on the choices that China and the rest of us make.<\/p>\n One-way of thinking about this is to accept this uncertainty and survey the space of possibilities (with credit to LTG Noboru Yamaguchi<\/a> for pointing this out). To take extreme positions, China will become either a peaceful great power cooperating with all or a revisionist great power aggressively remaking Asia. In either circumstance the role of the United States will be highly influential in determining what Australia and many others will do. America could remain deeply engaged in the Asian region and be strongly intent on shaping the regional order. Conversely, it might retire from the field of play and focus its efforts elsewhere. What do these four alternative futures look like for us? Maybe like this (click to enlarge):<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Seen this way, most futures seem OK. Three range from the really good \u2018Nirvana\u2019 to the ‘we\u2019ve done this before and survived’ Cold War Redux<\/i>. The Home Alone<\/i> future is though a really bad one. Should we then accept this worst-case analysis and structure our defence force for it? If we did, then surely the worst that could happen is that Australia will be unnecessarily poorer than it should be? Not quite. The danger of going that route is that others might follow\u2014they might think we know something they don’t or that we harbour aggressive intentions ourselves. For example, developing a nuclear capability would certainly draw attention.<\/p>\n Then how about force structuring around the competition-heavy Cold War Redux<\/i> possibility? Such a force would be in case an aggressive China arose and the US embraced a new containment strategy that we’d become part of. If we really thought such a future was likely, then extensive trade with the \u2018enemy\u2019 would be most unwise as this would simply be supporting a hostile military build-up\u2014a notion that might have historical resonance<\/a> as well. Sharply constraining trade though would inflict some real economic damage on us as we missed out on much of the financial gains from China\u2019s rise. Worse, it might also set off a security dilemma<\/a> in which China sees the west bulking up its power projection and containment capabilities and talks itself into a major arms expansion. We need to be really careful that we don\u2019t inadvertently create<\/i> the future we fear.<\/p>\n Should we then hope for the best and force structure for the better alternatives? This though runs significant risks if the future turns dark, as it did with the Japanese attacks in late 1942.<\/p>\n