【国家利益20131101】How to Win a War with China 如何 ...

来源:百度文库 编辑:超级军网 时间:2024/03/29 00:55:43
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。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。
战争可以打,但赢的可能正不断趋于零,否则就不叫战略制衡了
兔子被封锁了40年又怎样?
封锁中国?美国人不出一周就上街散步了,沃尔玛少说涨价十倍
还是那句老话:
战争开始的时候,由他们说了算,我们不会主动进攻;
但战争何时结束,有我们说了算,在彻底的把他们打服之前,我们是不会停手的。
世界第一军事大国联合世界最大的明主国家、世界第二军事强国以及一条最不要脸的狗来对付中国?

我们是人畜无害的兔子诶,不是天顶星人!
世界第一军事大国联合世界最大的明主国家、世界第二军事强国以及一条最不要脸的狗来对付中国?

...
美国联络俄罗斯对付中国?可以yy中俄联络英国对付美国吗?
这篇文章要大作宣传。。。。  借此 处理大批GZJY
美国不怕中国大搞导弹和核武器大扩散吗?中东南美很多国家翘首以待呢。
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。
啥也不用干,每年去一次中国行三跪九叩大礼——过50年这头狮子又睡过去了.......
不计成本,代价的确可以打败中国
说一个笑话 发表于 2013-11-7 09:08
美国联络俄罗斯对付中国?可以yy中俄联络英国对付美国吗?
什么理解能力,最大的明珠国家分明说的是印度!
说一个笑话 发表于 2013-11-7 09:08
美国联络俄罗斯对付中国?可以yy中俄联络英国对付美国吗?
什么理解能力,最大的明珠国家分明说的是印度!
说一个笑话 发表于 2013-11-7 09:08
美国联络俄罗斯对付中国?可以yy中俄联络英国对付美国吗?
什么理解能力,最大的明珠国家分明说的是印度!
2013-11-7 09:24 上传

中国一国单挑美印俄日那确实没啥胜算了。但是怎么可能
以为我们是二战时脚盆,一国单挑几十囯。
汗水制造器 发表于 2013-11-7 09:25
看到女神像 我就想起秦俑xx女神的图片
我去,太有内涵了。。。。。
那就直接把美国国债给抛了,两败俱伤,反正都封锁了,也就撕破脸了,大家一起玩完呗
你有张良计,我有过墙梯。
脑残吗?毛子会跟美国联合封锁中国?还没那个脸吧…这些篇文章是不是类似我兔的专家?也不看看我兔这个经济小心脏不跳了,会造成什么影响?伤敌一千,自损八百…
脑残吗?毛子会跟美国联合封锁中国?还没那个脸吧…这些篇文章是不是类似我兔的专家写的?也不看看我兔这个经济小心脏不跳了,会造成什么影响?伤敌一千,自损八百…
只要md用这种冷战思维看待世界,那毛子铁定会是tg的好基友,都是被md逼得。
“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”---------------这几个没一个愿意当美国小弟的, 包括本子,现在本子就在拼命挣脱针操带,挣脱后那也不是个吃素的。
footmanbac 发表于 2013-11-7 09:17
不计成本,代价的确可以打败中国
同时自己也被洗地了?中国到时候不造手机全国造核弹。。。
footmanbac 发表于 2013-11-7 09:17
不计成本,代价的确可以打败中国
同时自己也被洗地了?中国到时候不造手机全国造核弹。。。
看开开 发表于 2013-11-7 11:32
只要md用这种冷战思维看待世界,那毛子铁定会是tg的好基友,都是被md逼得。
是的,中国这个敌人真的是美国自己逼上梁山的。。。
此文作者与超大某些CDer一样智商和思维水准
什么理解能力,最大的明珠国家分明说的是印度!
你遗忘了第二军事强国了?是俄罗斯!

你的理解能力才是笑话!

人家要联络的国家又不是只有印度!

该文要美国联络俄罗斯围堵中国?不如yy,中国联络英国封锁美国!
说一个笑话 发表于 2013-11-7 12:56
你遗忘了第二军事强国了?是俄罗斯!

你的理解能力才是笑话!
鹅毛是民主国家?谁告诉你的?
哪有那么复杂? 不卖国债给中国不就可以战胜中国了么?
这个战略看似高明,实际上十分的愚蠢,不仅困不死中国,还会损失惨重。原因是:有亚欧铁路桥的存在,中国的商品可以不采用海路运输而用陆路运输,照样可以源源不断地向欧洲出口商品。而且中国经济对于出口的依赖程度已经大大减小,一年也就是2万亿美元,占到总需求的三分之一吧,大不了中国倒闭一些外向型企业而已。2.伊朗、中东、中亚、俄罗斯、非洲的石油和原材料可以从陆路输入中国,完全可以满足中国战时的需求,只不过价格和成本会高和大一些,加上中国在国内采取石油严格配给制度,可以使中国渡过战争时期。3.美军封锁中国,等于是弃日本、韩国、台湾于不顾,中国可以大举进攻这三个地方。总之,这个战略不仅困不死中国,还会使美军丢失在东亚的几大地盘。.
前几天还有个傻逼认为超大和《国家利益》的地位一样!
看到女神像 我就想起秦俑xx女神的图片
这个也太喜感了吧
yong_yo0924 发表于 2013-11-7 09:03
世界第一军事大国联合世界最大的明主国家、世界第二军事强国以及一条最不要脸的狗来对付中国?

...
我也一直奇怪,动不动就全世界来对付我们,我们已经强大到这种程度了?还是说,西方越来越不自信了。。。
liuyue1983121 发表于 2013-11-7 09:30
中国一国单挑美印俄日那确实没啥胜算了。但是怎么可能
如果印度人和毛子的智商都像小布什,也许美国人的计划有一成的可能成功
此文作者当属砖夹级别,鉴定完毕。
20年前都做不到的事情。。。今天中国市场是全球市场最大的增量来源。。。这是谁又在诈尸了{:soso_e129:}