China To Engage In 'Six Inevitable Wars' Involving U.S., Japan, India And More, According To Pro-Government Chinese Newspaper   Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers. ReutersMilitary delegates from the Chinese People's Liberation Army arrive at Tiananmen Square for a meeting during the annual session of China's parliament, the National People's Congress, in Beijing March 4, 2012. Reuters A map released by state-run Xinhua News Agency, which marks the newly established Air Defense Identification Zone, which includes disputed areas in the East China Sea. Xinhua China's announcement last weekend of an Air Defense Identification Zone, which includes disputed areas of the East China Sea, has ratcheted up tensions between China and her neighbors, leading some to believe war is imminent. The new air defense area includes the airspace above the hotly disputed cluster of tiny islands known as the Diaoyu to China and the Senkaku to the Japanese. International reaction to the ADIZ, particularly from Japan and its ally the U.S., has been uniformly defiant. In addition to official statements from Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Reuters reported Tuesday that two U.S. military aircraft have flown around the disputed islands in direct defiance of China’s ADIZ. “We have conducted operations in the area of the Senkakus,” spokesman Col. Steve Warren said, using the Japanese name for the islands. In addition to declaring the zone’s wide boundaries, Chinese military forces announced that all air travel in the designated ADIZ must be reported to avoid “emergency defensive measures in response.” The U.S. did the flyover without addressing the demands made by China. “We have continued to follow our normal procedures, which include not filing flight plans, not radioing ahead and not registering our frequencies,” Warren continued. The new ADIZ has brought added tension to one of China’s several current territorial disputes. As pointed out in Shanghai-based news-blog, The Shanghaiist.com, earlier this summer, a particularly strident pro-government local newspaper, Weweipo, published a war-mongering article describing the “Six Wars China Is Sure to Fight In the Next 50 Years.” The article essentially predicts that most of China’s current border disputes will eventually lead to war. Over the next 50 years, the article expects China to be engaged in war over the following issues: 1.       Taiwanese unification (2020-2025) While China and Taiwan currently have fairly peaceful relations, the mainland continues to strive for “unification.” 2.       South China Sea islands (2025-2030) According to a translation of the original article, as published by StratRisk.com, following the inevitable "return" of Taiwan, “South East Asian countries” will “already be shivering.” This momentum will be the driving force behind negotiations to “reconquer” South China Sea islands like the Spratlys, which neighboring governments like Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam all lay claim to. 3.       “Southern Tibet" (2035-2040) Though China and India share a long border along China’s southwest region, a Himalayan area claimed as "southern Tibet" is the main point of contention between the two huge nations. The article suggests that “the best strategy for China is to incite the disintegration of India” by dividing the nation into several smaller countriesso “India will have no power to cope with China." 4.       East China Sea islands (2040-2045) Unsurprisingly, the newspaper reaffirms that the East China Sea island groups of Diaoyu and Ryukyu, known in Japan as Senkaku and Okinawa, belong to China. While the article says the conflict won’t take place until 2040, other scholars have estimated that a war between China and Japan, and likely the U.S., could happen sooner. 5.       “Outer” Mongolia (2045-2050) “If Outer Mongolia can return to China peacefully, it is the best result, of course; but if China meets foreign intervention or resistance, China should be prepared to take military action,” the article reads. 6.       “Recover the territory seized by Russia” (2055-2060) The article recognizes the current good relations between China and Russia but insists that “China never forgets the lands lost to Russia” in past centuries, adding that “when the chance comes, China will take back the lands.” The article is predictably confident that all wars would be won by the Chinese side, and Russia is no different: “After the victories of previous five wars, it is time to make Russians pay the price.” Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera (L) inspects a guard of honor in New Delhi on January 6, 2014. Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (L) and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh shake hands after addressing the media at Hyderabad House in New Delhi January 25, 2014. (Reuters/Adnan Abidi)   Three major concrete deliverables emerged during Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s state visit to India, and in all three China is revealed to be a Shakespearean Banquo’s Ghost in the India-Japan discourse. First and foremost, the India-Japan Global and Strategic Partnership, which hitherto was largely confined to Japanese assistance in infrastructure projects in India, is now set for a push in the political aspects of the bilateral relationship with security and strategic overtones. This is clear by the decision of the two prime ministers – Abe and his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh – to have an institutionalized mechanism of regular consultations between the two sides’ national security advisors. Unlike India, Japan does not have a post of National Security Advisor; therefore, the Secretary-General of National Security Secretariat of Japan (the equivalent of India’s NSA) will be the point person for holding talks with the Indian NSA. Two, India has taken an unambiguous position for the first time on the recent Chinese policy of declaring an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which has been stiffly opposed and defied by powers including Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. A joint statement released at the end of delegation-level talks between Singh and Abe in New Delhi on January 25, clearly stated: “The two Prime Ministers underscored the importance of freedom of overflight and civil aviation safety in accordance with the recognized principles of international law and the relevant standards and recommended practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).” This is a bold foreign policy move by the Indians, especially when China had clarified shortly after its introduction of the ADIZ dispensation that India was out of its ambit. It shows that New Delhi has finally mustered enough gall and courage to side with Japan at the expense of China on the ADIZ controversy. In a sense, this is India’s way of squaring up with the Chinese for the discriminatory Chinese policy of issuing stapled visas for Indians domiciled in the Indian states of Jammu and Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. By the stapled visas policy, the Chinese had taken sides with Pakistan at the expense of India. Three, India and Japan decided to put a deeper emphasis on military-to-military exchanges and joint exercises and prepared an ambitious roadmap in this regard. Singh and Abe underscored the importance of such exercises and decided to hold these with increased frequency. Indian Navy (IN) and the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) held the second bilateral exercise in December 2013 off the coast of Chennai and will now have its next edition in the Pacific Ocean in 2014. The focus on the Indo-Pacific is unmistakable. Abe has been a vocal supporter of India’s increased presence in the Pacific – another red rag for China. Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (C) speaks with Indian Vice President Hamid Ansari as his wife Akie (R) and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (2nd L) look on, while attending the "At Home" reception at the Rashtrapati Bhavan presidential palace after the Republic Day parade in New Delhi January 26, 2014. (Reuters) Besides these three concrete deliverables off the Singh-Abe talks on January 25, it is work in progress on two other recent high points in the India-Japan narrative: Japan’s sale of US2 amphibian aircraft to India and a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. On the former, the two sides have already held the first meeting of the joint working group in New Delhi in December 2013 and the second meeting of the group is scheduled to be held in March 2014 in Japan. This is for the first time that Japan has agreed to sell an equipment of potential military use to a foreign country. On the latter, the two prime ministers “directed their officials to exert further efforts towards an early conclusion” of the nuclear deal, the joint statement said. These are tricky and complicated negotiations and will take months, possibly years, for signing the nuclear deal. Indo-Japan relations have gone from strength to strength in recent years. In fact, Japan is the only country in India’s foreign policy outreach in the past one decade with which India’s relations have constantly been on an upswing. Not even Russia, India’s closest and traditional strategic partner, can boast of this track record. India’s relations with Japan have begun to take the flavor of India’s relations with Russia and the US where the two sides are cooperating on virtually everything under the sun – defense, energy, nuclear, trade, investment, science and technology, infrastructure, health, people-to-people contacts, railways, cyber security and tourism, apart from political and strategic issues. Abe’s visit was preceded by a visit to India by Japan’s Emperor and Empress (November 30-December 6), the first ever in the 2,600-year history of the monarchy in Japan. This was followed by Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera’s visit to India last month – the first such visit by a Japanese defense minister. India’s defense minister will be traveling to Japan later this year. Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (centre R) waves as he walks with Indian President Pranab Mukherjee (centre L) as they leave after attending the Republic Day parade in New Delhi January 26, 2014. (Reuters) The increasing India-Japan bonhomie will be a headache for China and a major succor for the United States. India, Japan and the US have been having a Trilateral Dialogue on security issues since November 2011. China cannot be oblivious to the fact that Japan and India (Asia’s number two and three economies, respectively) are getting closer at a time when Abe is trying to restore ‘Japan’s pride,” not unlike what Vladimir Putin has done for Russia. Abe has recently declared the “Restoration of Sovereignty Day” to mark April 28, 1952 (the date when the Allied occupation after Second World War ended); changed Japanese post-war constitution’s pacifist nature by reinterpreting Article 9; and introduced a highly controversial national secrecy law. STORY HIGHLIGHTS India and Japan have been in talks on expanded bilateral defense cooperation Both Asian powers have endured an uneasy relationship with China Japan has long regarded India as a powerful counterweight to Beijing's strategic rise Yet trade between China and Japan dwarfs trade between Tokyo and India Editor's note: Geoff Hiscock is a former Asia business editor of CNN.com and the author of "Earth Wars: The Battle for Global Resources," published by Wiley. (CNN) -- Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's intended presence as chief guest of honor at India's Republic Day parade in New Delhi on Sunday symbolizes the significance India places on an ever-closer relationship with Japan in their mutual quest to counter the economic and strategic might of China. Abe, whose Defense Minister, Itsunori Onodera, was in India earlier this month for talks on expanded bilateral defense cooperation, will see some of India's latest military hardware on display in the traditional parade, including its nuclear-capable long-range missiles, the Agni 4 and Agni 5. India successfully tested a 4,000-km range Agni 4 on January 20 from its Wheeler Island launch site in the Bay of Bengal. Republic Day is the most high-profile event on the Indian political calendar, and the government makes a point of inviting leaders from countries with whom it seeks to cultivate closer ties. Chief guests in recent years have included the presidents of Indonesia and South Korea, for example. Last month, India and Japan held their first bilateral naval exercise in Indian waters off the coast of Chennai, following on from a similar exercise in Japanese waters in June 2012. The two sides have also taken part in the multilateral "Malabar" naval exercises in recent years, joining US, Australian and Singaporean ships. Territorial disputes Japan's PM visits controversial shrine Actor helps China-Japan relations? U.S.-China ties tested Growth slowing down in India Japan and India, the second and third-biggest economies in Asia behind China, both have an uneasy relationship with Beijing. Tensions between Japan and China are running high over territorial disputes in the East China Sea centered on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and over the controversial December 26 visit by Abe to the Yasukuni Shrine, the Tokyo site regarded by China, North Korea and South Korea as a symbol of Japan's imperial military past and honors war criminals. India and China fought a brief border war in 1962 and had a serious military standoff last April when India alleged that Chinese troops crossed into Indian-held territory near Ladakh in the Himalayan mountain range. China denied any incursion. There were further incidents in July near Ladakh and in August in Arunachal Pradesh, the northeastern Indian state where China also has laid claim to territory. Since then, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang have pledged "maximum restraint" on border issues. They vowed not to seek "unilateral superiority" along the 3,500-km border when they signed an agreement in Beijing last October. Japan -- and Abe in particularly -- has long regarded India as a powerful counterweight to China's strategic rise in the Indo-Pacific region. In his 2007 book "Towards a Beautiful Country: My Vision for Japan," Abe singled out India for special attention, writing that it would not surprise him if "in another decade, Japan-India relations overtake Japan-U.S. and Japan-China ties." China-Japan trade That goal looks improbable -- at least on the economic front. Japan's $340 billion of annual two-way trade with China dwarfs its $20 billion trade ties with India -- a consequence of the many Japanese businesses based in China -- but India has long been the biggest recipient of Japanese development aid and both sides are keen to grow business and investment ties. During Abe's upcoming visit, he and Singh are expected to discuss Japanese investment and assistance for the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor and other infrastructure projects such as the Mumbai Metro. Japan is also keen to sell its unique ShinMaywa US-2 search and rescue seaplane to the Indian defense forces. Asked at a press conference in New Delhi on January 6 about Chinese concerns over the proposal, Japanese Defense Minister Onodera said he believed China was probably the world's biggest exporter of weapons. "I feel there is an incongruity that China, which sells lots of weapons globally, is concerned about Japan's attempt to export the US-2, which is not even a weapon but just a seaplane. I speculate that the international community has the same view as ours," he said. Mistakes of past Abe, who became Japanese prime minister in December 2012 -- a role he also held in 2006-07 -- has shown an assertive style in his attempts to rebuild Japan's economic and military status in the Indo-Pacific region. His approach prompted sustained criticism from China during 2013, urging Japan to "adopt a correct attitude" and reflect on the mistakes of its militaristic past. Predictably, Abe's December 26 visit to Yasukuni Shrine evoked strong reactions from both China and South Korea. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said on January 9that Abe, by his actions and words, had "shut the door" on dialogue with the Chinese side. "It shows that he does not have even the slightest interest in improving relations with China and other Asian neighbors," Hua said. For China, a warmer relationship between Japan and India is just another indicator of what it regards as a U.S.-led attempt to encircle or contain China. In its view, the Obama administration's "Asian pivot," with its enhanced military cooperation with countries such as Japan, Australia and the Philippines, is a vehicle to delay or derail China's natural ascension as the preeminent Asian power. Asian Aircraft Carrier Race -- China Vs. India Vs. Japan Tugboats guide the Vikrant as it leaves the dock of the Cochin Shipyard after the launch ceremony in Kochi  AFP/Getty Images via @daylife) What is it about aircraft carriers that just about any nation of supersize and heft has to have one? That’s the question after the launch over the past week of two aircraft carriers by nations on either side of China – that is, India, to the south and southwest and Japan to the east. The Indian aircraft carrier won’t actually be able to do anything for real for another five years while the Japanese carrier is supposedly just a large destroyer with an outsized flight deck. The Japanese say that’s big enough for only 14 helicopters, but it sure looks as if it’s intended for fixed-wing aircraft as well. Nobody’s predicting that either of these mighty warships will go into battle in the near future. Still, the Japanese carrier, or destroyer, does appear as a response to China’s lone aircraft carrier, a discard from the Ukraine that was rebuilt in China but isn’t carrying planes except for testing and training. Discreetly, the Japanese aren’t boasting much about the 19,500-ton Izumo, which should be ready for action in two years, but Japan’s success in producing such a vessel may diminish the Chinese challenge to Japanese control over the disputed Senkaku islands, Diaoyu to the Chinese. No one doubts that Japanese shipyards, after decades producing some of the biggest, most sophisticated commercial vessels, could turn out still more in the Izumo class – and go up in class to full-fledged aircraft carriers. At the same time, India is trumpeting Monday’s launch of the 37,500-ton Vikrant as its first “indigenous” aircraft carrier, entirely engineered and produced in India at a shipyard in Cochin on the southeastern coast, but this vessel is far from functional.  Yes, it’s safely in the water, to the din of a traditional band and Sanskrit chants, christened by the wife of defense minister A.K. Antony when she broke a coconut on the bow, but basically it’s a shell awaiting a flight deck, bridge and much else. As  for China’s carrier the Liaoning, the new name of a Soviet Navy ship that was launched 25 years ago, it’s been rebuilt and sailing around the Yellow Sea for more than a year, but it’s relegated to the role of a training vessel. Chinese shipyards are expected to try to produce home-made models in the next few years, advancing on much the same technology. At 55,000 tons, the Liaoning’s got a flight deck 999 feet long – not all that much longer than the 860-foot flight deck of the Vikrant or the 814-foot flight deck of the Izumo– and can carry maybe 50 fighter planes compared with 36 on the Vikrant. (The Japanese, of course, don’t say how many planes the Izumo might carry since, remember, it’s not supposed to carry any planes at all.) China's first aircraft carrier, the 'Liaoning,' berthed at the naval base in Dalian, northeast China's Liaoning province.(AFP/Getty Images via @daylife) China is obviously upset about the competition, especially from Japan, always seen as looking for an excuse to return to the days of Japanese imperialism that ended 68 years ago this week with the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945. The Japanese have built hundreds of enormous merchant ships but no military vessel nearly as large as the Izumo since the “Pacific War.” For India, not known as a ship-building nation despite its long coastlines, the launch of the Vikrant, meaning “courageous,” is a matter of intense pride. “A proud moment for Indian Navy,” headlined The Hindu, a major national newspaper. “In Elite Club,” said a subhead. “Indigenous” and “indigenization” are words that come up regularly in reports of the launch. It’s as though Indians are overjoyed not to have to describe the ship as “Indianized” via “Indianization” – terms for converting three other carriers, two that began life in the British Royal Navy and a third that’s arriving soon from the Russian navy. “India will join a select club of  four nations – U.S., UK, France and Russia – that have the capability to build and operate warships of this size,” said The Indian Express EXPR -0.54%, another national newspaper, despite “a long road ahead” before the ship is completed, has undergone sea trials and is ready for duty. Actually, India has much more to do than that if the ship is fit for war – for instance against Pakistan. The new Vikrant will not go to war without destroyers for protection and tenders and supply vessels to keep it fueled and its 1,500-man crew adequately fed, but India’s first carrier, also named the Vikrant (the Hercules during its Royal Navy days, now a floating museum in Mumbai), came in handy in the Indo-Pak War more than 40 years ago. . Crew members of Japan's newest warship, the Izumo. during launch ceremony in Yokohama on August 6, (AFP/Getty Images via @daylife) But where is the arms race in aircraft carriers really going? How can India justify the investment of more than $5 billion in an aircraft carrier against other priorities ranging from food and health to defense on its land borders with Pakistan and China? The question seems all the more relevant as U.S.carriers more than twice as large roam the region’s waters. If the aircraft carriers of China, Japan and India ever go to war, it’s a safe bet that the George Washington and Ronald Reagan, nearly 100,000 tons each, will be throwing their weight around. And that’s to say nothing of a new class of supercarrier beginning with the Gerald R. Ford, due for launch this year. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s recent visit to Manila has galvanised Japan’s strategic partnership with the Philippines. The two countries have come together in reaction to China’s assertiveness, and because of converging economic imperatives. Standing together with Philippine President Benigno Aquino, Abe announced that Tokyo and Manila would expand the scope of their maritime and economic cooperation. Tokyo will extend a stand-by credit loan for the Philippines’ disaster preparedness and offer continuous assistance to the Mindanao peace process, among other initiatives. When it was created in 2011, the purpose of the Japan–Philippines Strategic Partnership was simply to facilitate the exchange of goods, services, people and investments between the two economies through the implementation of the Japan–Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. But ever since Abe was elected, the relationship has shifted focus to maritime security cooperation. So it was no surprise when Prime Minister Abe promised 10 patrol vessels to the Philippine Coast Guard through a loan agreement. In itself, this should not alarm anyone. Both the Philippines and Japan are maritime nations who want to ensure maritime security and freedom of navigation in the region’s vital Sea Lines of Communication. In context, however, this cooperation can be seen as a clear response to a common threat — China’s maritime build-up in the East and South China Seas. The relationship with Japan is just one element in the Philippines’ broader strategy: to intensify defence cooperation with its allies to compensate for its limited military capability and insecurity. Manila’s multilateral approach to security in the South China Sea is also a bid to counter Beijing’s insistence on bilateralism, which may legally and strategically undermine Manila’s territorial claims. This is why President Aquino will give the United States and Japan access to the Subic Naval Base, a former US military facility facing the South China Sea. Japan, too, gains from increased cooperation. The Philippines will play a role in Japan’s nascent defence strategy of deploying Japanese marine troops and surveillance drones to protect its remote islands in the East China Sea. Also, a better relationship with the Philippines fits in with Japan’s foreign policy strategy of re-engaging ASEAN. But Japan cannot be an effective counterweight to China on its own. China is not likely to be intimidated. It is only the United States, still the dominant Pacific power, which can guarantee peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific through its military presence. Still, the revitalised partnership will be useful, and it is not just about counter-balancing China. Prime Minister Abe and President Aquino pledged to bolster economic cooperation at a time when both Japan and the Philippines are undergoing an economic renaissance and gaining international confidence by combining fiscal stimulus with economic reform. But the Japanese government knows its economy needs closer ties with vibrant ASEAN countries if reforms are to succeed. As the fastest-growing economy in the region, the Philippines offers a competitive investment destination and a lucrative market for Japanese companies, who are looking elsewhere than China in light of anti-Japan protests, which disrupt business. On the other hand, President Aquino thinks Japan can be a major driver of the Philippines’ future economic growth. His administration is turning to foreign direct investments (FDI) to expand the manufacturing sector. In 2012, Japan was the Philippines’ largest trade partner, with roughly US$16 billion in total bilateral trade, and the second-biggest source of FDI. Prime Minister Abe’s visit is seen as catalysing Tokyo’s support for President Aquino’s key programs in infrastructure development, disaster preparedness, and the Mindanao peace process through official development assistance. Japan is the leading source of such aid to the Philippines and it has poured money into Mindanao, where the Philippine government has been negotiating for a comprehensive peace pact with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Aquino clearly wants a final peace accord to form part of his legacy, and Japan has contributed significantly to the process through its development projects under the framework of the Japan–Bangsamoro Initiative for Reconstruction and Development, or J-BIRD. During Abe’s visit, Philippine survivors of Japanese military sexual slavery during World War II urged Aquino to bring up their demand for official apology. But President Aquino did not delve into the issue of comfort women and even suggested that the Philippines has moved on from its historic conflict with Japan. The Philippine government has said previously that it would back a rearmed Japan shorn of its pacifist constitution to counter-balance China in the Asia Pacific. Japan’s and the Philippines’ strategic and economic interests are converging. Their relationship is no longer defined by the bitter memories of brutal Japanese occupation. Instead, their priorities are to ensure economic growth and counter China’s assertiveness. US, Japan, India & Australia announce military alliance against China New 'strategic partnership' against China Ships, aircraft and submarines from four countries begin week-long war games in the Bay of Bengal on 4 September. It is the first flexing of muscles by the newly-formed "Quadrilateral Initiative", which brings together the US, Japan, India and Australia. Singapore also has a small presence in the exercises. Many analysts see the manoeuvres as efforts by a democratic coalition to "contain" rising Chinese power. Although the participants deny this, Beijing seems to be increasingly worried. Beijing unconvinced When the four powers set up the initiative (informally named the Quad) in Manila last May, a deeply-concerned Beijing sent formal protests to the four governments. Quad members reassured China that their "strategic partnership" was only aimed at maintaining regional security, and was not targeting any particular power. A month later, Chinese President Hu Jintao sought clarification from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the G8 summit in Germany. Although he received reiterations of peace and friendship, Chinese commentary suggests Beijing was not convinced. Dubbed Malabar 07-02, these are the biggest joint manoeuvres Indian warships have participated in. They were preceded by extensive discussions in Delhi. In July, Australia's Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, set out the policy framework of defence collaboration. A month later, Admiral Russell Shalders, commander of the Australian navy, visited India - to work out the mechanics of collaboration and the details of the exercises. Just days later, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe arrived in Delhi, offering substantial economic and commercial assistance if India agreed to anchor "an Asian arc of freedom" stretching across the Indian and Pacific Oceans and providing a democratic bulwark - presumably against non-democratic powers. Defence coalition As Mr Abe prepared to leave, his Defence Minister, Yoriko Koike, and the Commander of US Pacific Command, Admiral Timothy Keating, arrived in Delhi, to finalise details of defence co-operation and Malabar 07-02. This flurry of senior-level exchanges and the size and complexity of the manoeuvres add weight to the arguments of those who say that the Quad is rapidly gelling into a defence coalition. Two US aircraft carriers and one from India, as well as 11 other US ships will join more than a dozen vessels from India, Australia and Singapore to test out how well they can work together against common threats. Although Quad members insist China has nothing to fear, a similar exercise (Malabar 07-01) involving US, Indian and Japanese warships churned the waters of the South China Sea in April. Bilateral war games are not new for Quad members, but there seems recently to have been a new momentum. Defence papers issued by all four governments have described China as a potential threat, and that combined with the launch of the Quad suggest a pattern of alliance-building activities that China cannot ignore. Perhaps as a sign of things to come, 1,600 Chinese troops travelled to Russia's Ural mountains to join several thousand mostly Russian troops in "Peace Mission 2007" manoeuvres in August. These ended as President Vladimir Putin hosted Hu and the presidents of four other Shanghai Co-operation Organisation countries (after their annual summit in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek) at the closing ceremony. Mr Putin then announced the resumption of long-range bomber sorties towards Nato airspace, which had been suspended after the Soviet collapse. The Cold War may not be back, but with trade and security tensions rising between the US, China and Russia, a chill wind seems to be blowing as Asia redesigns its strategic alignments.

A long-standing conflict over the sovereignty of a group of eight tiny, uninhabited islands in the East China Sea has resulted in dozens of anti-Japanese protests across China, some violent. The dispute came to a head after the Japanese government nationalized control of three of the largest islands earlier this month, purchasing them from a private Japanese family for more than US$25 million. The island group is called Senkaku Islands by the Japanese, Diaoyu Islands by the Chinese, Tiaoyutai Islands by Taiwanese, or the Pinnacle Islands by English speakers. Beyond national pride, potentially large gas reserves and fishing rights have raised the stakes, and China is now moving to assert its claim to the islands, contain the demonstrations at home, and respond forcefully to what it sees as a major Japanese provocation. An anti-Japan protester tears Japanese Rising Sun Flag during a rally outside the Japanese Consulate General in Hong Kong as they demanded that the Japanese government release Chinese activists arrested in Japan after landing on Uotsuri Island, one of the islands of Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)  2 Uotsuri island, part of the disputed islands in the East China Sea, known as the Senkaku isles in Japan, Diaoyu islands in China, in the East China Sea, in this June 19, 2011 photo. Uotsuri is the largest of the island group, with an area of 4.32 square kilometers.(Reuters/Kyodo) #  3 Thousands of Chinese protesters take part in a demonstration in Chengdu, Sichuan province against Japan's claim of the Diaoyu islands, as they are known in Chinese, or Senkaku islands in Japanese, on August 19, 2012. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) #  4 Chinese demonstrators stage an anti-Japanese protest over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, China, on September 15, 2012. There were protests in many major cities in China, including Shanghai, Shenzhen, Shenyang, Hangzhou, Harbin, Qingdao and Hong Kong. (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images) #  5 Officers stand guard as people shout slogans and hold Chinese flags during an anti-Japanese protest over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, outside the Japanese embassy in Beijing, on September 15, 2012. Hundreds of people protested in front of the Japanese embassy in Beijing on Saturday amid rising tensions over disputed East China Sea islands as police struggled to quell the angry demonstration.(MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images) #  6 Chinese demonstrators clash with policemen at barricades during an anti-Japanese protests outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, on Saturday, September 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Andy Wong) #  7 Demonstrators damage a window on a Japanese Seibu department store during a protest against Japan's decision to purchase the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, in Shenzhen, south China's Guangdong province, on September 16, 2012. (Reuters/Tyrone Siu) #  8 A demonstrator swings an iron bar to smash goods at a Japanese-funded shopping center during a protest in Qingdao, Shandong province, on September 15, 2012. (Reuters/Stringer) #  9 Carts are piled up in a damaged area of a Japanese JUSCO department store after a group of Chinese protesters ransacked it, in Qingdao, northeast China's Shandong province, on September 15, 2012. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) #  10 Anti-Japanese protesters are confronted by police as they demonstrate over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, on September 16, 2012 in Shenzhen, China. (Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images) #  11 Police walk past a closed Japanese restaurant covered with Chinese national flags as anti-Japanese protests continued outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands issue, on September 17, 2012. The mouthpiece of China's Communist Party warned on on September 17 that Japan's economy could suffer for up to 20 years if Beijing chose to impose sanctions over the escalating territorial row. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) #  12 Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's PC3 surveillance plane flies around the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, on October 13, 2011. (Reuters/Kyodo) #  13 The city government of Tokyo's survey staff sail around the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, on September 2, 2012. The city government of Tokyo sent a ship to survey the group of disputed islands, as it considered purchasing them. (Reuters/Kyodo) #  14 Activists burn Japanese flags during a demonstration over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, outside the Japanese consulate in Hong Kong, on September 16, 2012. (Antony Dickson/AFP/Getty Images) #  15 An anti-Japanese protester throws a gas canister during a demonstration on September 16, 2012 in Shenzhen, China. Protests have taken place across China in the dispute that is becoming increasingly worrying for regional stability. (Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images) #  16 A Chinese man holds a national flag during a protest outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, on August 15, 2012.(AP Photo/Andy Wong) #  17 Riot police block protesters from accessing the American consulate during a protest against Japan's decision to purchase the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, in Chengdu, on September 16, 2012. Torrid protests against Japan broke out in Chinese cities for a second day on Sunday, prompting Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda to urge Beijing to protect his country's companies and diplomatic buildings from fresh assaults. (Reuters/Jason Lee) #  18 A view from the Tokyo city government's survey ship of one of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, on September 2, 2012. The Tokyo city government rented a nearly 2,500 ton survey vessel to take 25 experts around the islands to determine how they could be used if bought.(Reuters/Chris Meyers) #  19 A boat, center, is surrounded by Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats after Chinese activists descended from the boat to land on Uotsuri Island, one of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea Wednesday, August 15, 2012.(AP Photo/Yomiuri Shimbun, Masataka Morita) #  20 Activists holding Chinese and Taiwanese flags are arrested by Japanese police officers after landing on Uotsuri Island, one of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, in the East China Sea, on August 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Yomiuri Shimbun, Masataka Morita) #  21 Onlookers view a large protest banner at the Silk Street market, which is famous for selling counterfeit designer brand goods, as anti-Japanese protests continue in Beijing over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands issue, on September 17, 2012.(Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) #  22 Members of a Japanese nationalist group land on Uotsuri island, part of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, on August 19, 2012. Several Japanese nationalists landed on on the rocky island in the East China Sea at the heart of a territorial row with Beijing, sparking protests in several Chinese cities and a diplomatic rebuke from Beijing. (Reuters/Chris Meyers) #  23 Unidentified members from a Japanese nationalist group and local assembly members are seen after landing on a Uotsuri island, part of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, on August 19, 2012. (Reuters/Kyodo) #  24 People hold banners and shout slogans as they attend a rally to protest against Japan's claim on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, in Hangzhou, east China's Zhejiang province, on August 19, 2012. (STR/AFP/Getty Images) #  25 An activist waves a burning Japan-US combined flag during a demonstration over a group of disputed islands, as people make their way to the Japanese consulate in Hong Kong, on September 16, 2012. (Antony Dickson/AFP/Getty Images) #  26 Officers stand guard as people hold Chinese flags and banners during an anti-Japanese protest outside the Japanese embassy, on September 15, 2012. Hundreds of people protested in front of the Japanese embassy in Beijing on September 15 amid rising tensions over disputed East China Sea islands as police struggled to quell the angry demonstration. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) #  27 A Chinese paramilitary policeman is hit by a traffic cone as he tries to hold back protesters from storming the Japanese embassy in Beijing, China, on Sept. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) #  28 An anti-Japanese protester bleeds from the nose as riot police look on, during a demonstration over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, on September 16, 2012 in Shenzhen, China. (Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images) #  29 Chinese protesters kick barricades during an anti-Japan protest outside the Japanese embassy in Beijing, on Sept. 15, 2012.(AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) #  30 Chinese demonstrators stage an anti-Japanese protest over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, outside the Japanese Embassy, on September 15, 2012 in Beijing, China. (Lintao Zhang/Getty Images) #  31 A Chinese riot policeman shields himself from eggs and water bottles thrown by protesters during an anti-Japanese protest outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, on September 15, 2012. (Goh Chai Hin/AFP/Getty Images) #  32 A protester throws a police helmet to the ground as fellow demonstrators take pictures during an anti-Japan protest in Guangzhou, Guangdong province, on September 16, 2012. (Reuters/Stringer) #  33 Water splashes from a bottle thrown by a demonstrator at the main entrance gate of Japanese Embassy during a protest in Beijing, on September 16, 2012. (AP Photo/Andy Wong) #  34 A Chinese paramilitary policeman reacts as a giant Chinese national flag is pulled by protesters towards the Japanese embassy in Beijing, China, on September 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan) #  35 A Chinese demonstrator jumps and kicks a fence set up by paramilitary policemen during an anti-Japan protest outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, on September 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Andy Wong) #  36 A paramilitary policeman guards an entrance of the Japanese Embassy, eggs and paint splattered on its wall, in Beijing, China, on September 16, 2012. (AP Photo/Alexander F. Yuan)

 

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY  JULY 4,2022

The Founding Fathers of the United States were directed as well as inspired by God in the creation and writing of the United States Constitution. Over the 220 plus years that the constitution has existed the constitution has undergone many changes. To distinguish the original constitution from the constitution that the United States is governed by today we will call the original document the Founding Fathers Constitution. Yet the SCOTUS FAILED  the interpretation of the original constitution by allowing party lines to influence their decisions.

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. "The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American "experiment in democracy" with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies." John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since approximately 7,000-8,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has "original jurisdiction" in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

The U. S. Founding Fathers were provided with a unique perspective that few people in history have experienced firsthand that is living under both extremes of government rule. The authority of a tyrannical government as well as living under an ineffectual government charter with insufficient powers to govern. Initially life under the King George III of England was acceptable. In fact, most of the people enjoyed life under the authority of the King of England. As time passed grievances arose that the King was unable or unwilling to address. The King’s unwillingness to correct the problems encountered by the colonists mounted till corrections had to be made. The King refusing to address the problems worsened the situation for the colonists by adding additional laws, tariffs and taxes onto the backs of the colonists. A once loved King George III became a tyrannical leader. The U. S. Founding Fathers attempted to redress the situation through every legal avenue they had available. This eventually led to a hardening of positions on both sides which in turn led to the Revolutionary War.

Life under an Ineffective Government Charter

The colonies after cutting ties with England established a charter the Articles of Confederation to administer the duties, obligations of the thirteen colonies as well as conducting the war. The Articles of Confederation were found to be ineffective not providing sufficient authority to the central government. The Articles of Confederation were dependent upon the colonies relinquishing authority over their territory. The colonists as well as their colonial governments were unwilling to give the central government sufficient authority to effectively govern the thirteen colonies. In spite of these deficiencies the Colonists were able to win the Revolutionary War. George Washington credited the colonies performance in the war to acts of Providence. The colonists lived several years under the limited authority of the central government governing using the Articles of Confederation charter. This allowed the colonists to understand the disadvantages of life under a government that did not possess sufficient authority to effectively rule. Living under these two extremes the Founding Fathers knew the disadvantages of both governmental entities. The Founding Fathers historical experience allowed them to create a comprehensive document designed to protect the rights of the people.

The Founding Father’s Constitution

Life under the rule of the King taught the colonists to fear absolute control. Whereas life under the charter of the Articles of Confederation taught the Founders that a central government must have certain powers and authority to be able to govern properly. Faced with these two opposing positions the U. S. Founding Fathers undertook the creation of the United States Constitution.

Checks and Balances

The Founders were fearful that a central government over time would increase its authority and control over the people established sets of checks and balances to limit the ability of the central government to morph into a tyrannical government without the approval of the States and the people. To protect the rights and freedom of the people checks and balances were established. Thomas Jefferson believed that the government at the State level, being closer to the people, would provide the people with greater representation. By balancing the authority of the national government with the combined powers of the States the powers of the national government are limited. In this manner the powers of the Federal government are balanced between the States and the Federal or central government. Though the power of the Federal government was now balanced the Founding Fathers were still fearful that the central government could still develop into a tyrannical government body. Further checks were established to limit and restrict the ability of the central government from acquiring additional authority and power over the people. Among the checks three entities of the national government established branches with specific duties and responsibilities. Each branch had VETO authority over the other branches. The bi-camel congress was given separate distinct responsibilities. A bi-camel congress was established to represent their segment of the controlling government bodies. The Senate was to defend the State’s rights whereas the House of Representatives were to represent the people. It is this VETO authority that provides the checks to an out-of-control Federal government.

States Rights

The Federal government’s authority and powers are derived directly from the States. The States were placed between the Federal government and the people. In this way the States are a “Wall of Political Protection” protecting the rights and freedom of the people. To accomplish this control authority the States were provided with Senators that would be under direct control of their State legislature. The U. S. Senators were to report directly to their State legislature to determine the response the Senators should or should not take at the Federal level of government. The U. S. Senators were appointed by their States legislature. The Senators were subject to the dictates of their particular State’s legislature. In this way the States could protect the States authority as well as protect the freedom of its citizenry from infringing power of the Federal government. The House of Representatives was established to represent and protect the people of their state. The House Representatives were elected by their state’s registered voters. The House Representatives served subject to the dictates of the people.

Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers established the separation of powers along with the redundancy of checks and balances so that the unalienable rights and freedom of the people could be adequately protected. The Founders were so fearful of the possibility that the central government would morph over time to become tyrannical that the Bill of Rights was added to the Founding Fathers constitution. The Bill of Rights established the specific restrictions dictating the limits that were to be placed on the Federal government. It was only with the addition of the Bill of Rights to the constitution that all the Founders got on board willing to accept the Founding Fathers constitution as the official governing document. The Founders constitution was completed in 1787 and enacted in into the law of the land in 1789.     

 

Strategy Details War Plan to stop Russia and China

Image: AP

NATO was facing rebukes from Moscow and Beijing on Thursday after it declared Russia a “direct threat” and said China posed “serious challenges ” to global stability.

The Western military alliance was wrapping up a summit in Madrid, where it issued a stark warning that the world has been plunged into a dangerous phase of big-power competition and myriad threats, from cyberattacks to climate change.

NATO leaders also formally invited Finland and Sweden to join the alliance, after overcoming opposition from Turkey. If the Nordic nations' accession is approved by the 30 member nations, it will give NATO a new 800-mile (1,300 kilometer) border with Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned he would respond in kind if the Nordic nations allowed NATO troops and military infrastructure onto their territory. He said Russia will have to “create the same threats for the territory from which threats against us are created.” China accused the alliance of “maliciously attacking and smearing” the country. Its mission to the European Union said NATO “claims that other countries pose challenges, but it is NATO that is creating problems around the world.” Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told the summit that Russia's invasion of Ukraine had brought “the biggest overhaul of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.” The invasion shattered Europe's peace, and in response NATO has poured troops and weapons into eastern Europe on a scale unseen in decades. Member nations have given Ukraine billions in military and civilian aid to strengthen its resistance.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who addressed the summit by video link, asked for more. He urged NATO to send modern artillery systems and other weapons and warned the leaders they either had to provide Kyiv with the help it needed or “face a delayed war between Russia and yourself.” “The question is, who's next? Moldova? Or the Baltics? Or Poland? The answer is: all of them,” he said.

At the summit, NATO leaders agreed to dramatically scale up military force along the alliance's eastern flank, where countries from Romania to the Baltic states worry about Russia's future plans.

It announced plans to increase almost eightfold the size of the alliance's rapid reaction force, from 40,000 to 300,000 troops, by next year. The troops will be based in their home nations but dedicated to specific countries in the east, where the alliance plans to build up stocks of equipment and ammunition.

President Joe Biden, whose country provides the bulk of NATO's firepower, announced a hefty boost in America's military presence in Europe, including a permanent U.S. base in Poland, two more Navy destroyers based in Rota, Spain, and two more F35 squadrons to the U.K.

The expansion will keep 100,000 troops in Europe for the foreseeable future, up from 80,000 before the war in Ukraine began.

Biden said Putin had believed NATO members would splinter after he invaded Ukraine, but he got the opposite response.

“Putin was looking for the Finland-ization of Europe,” Biden said. “You're gonna get the NATO-ization of Europe. And that's exactly what he didn't want, but exactly what needs to be done to guarantee security for Europe.” Still, strains among NATO allies have also emerged as the cost of energy and other essential goods has skyrocketed, partly because of the war and tough Western sanctions on Russia. There also are tensions over how the war will end and what, if any, concessions Ukraine should make.

Money remains a sensitive issue — just nine of NATO's 30 members currently meet the organization's target of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense.

At what Stoltenberg called a “transformative” summit, the leaders published NATO's new Strategic Concept, its once-a-decade set of priorities and goals.

The last such document, in 2010, called Russia a “strategic partner.” Now, NATO is accusing Russia of using “coercion, subversion, aggression and annexation” to extend its reach.

The 2010 document made no mention of China, but the new one addressed Bejing's growing economic and military reach.

“China is not our adversary, but we must be clear-eyed about the serious challenges it represents,” Stoltenberg said on Wednesday.

NATO said that China “strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains” and warned of its close ties with Moscow.

The alliance said, however, that it remained “open to constructive engagement” with Beijing.

China shot back that NATO was a source of instability and vowed to defend its interests.

“Since NATO positions China as a systemic challenge,' we have to pay close attention and respond in a coordinated way. When it comes to acts that undermine China's interests, we will make firm and strong responses,” its statement said.

NATO also stressed the need to address political instability in Africa's Sahel region and the Middle East — aggravated by “climate change, fragile institutions, health emergencies and food insecurity” — that is driving large numbers of migrants toward Europe. Host Spain and other European countries pushed for this new focus.

NATO is putting Russia and any other “nuclear-armed peer-competitors” on notice that the trans-Atlantic alliance can and will retaliate against any nuclear attack.

The latest edition of the security bloc’s guiding strategic concept evinces a more muscular posture regarding NATO’s nuclear forces than the 2010 document, which characterized Russia as a “partner” just four years before the Kremlin seized Crimea from Ukraine. And the latest document implies that as North Atlantic allies send a stronger signal about threats from Russia’s nuclear threats, they also won’t fail to keep an eye on China’s nuclear arsenal.

“We have a wartime strategic concept, actually, not a peacetime one, so [we] want to use stronger language,” a senior European official told the Washington Examiner.

The balance of nuclear military power emerged as a burning issue in the last several months, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has invoked Moscow’s arsenal to deter at least some Western support or intervention for Ukraine. His nuclear saber-rattling has spurred some European officials to wonder if Putin thinks he could win a limited nuclear war; the allies, for their part, asserted such a conflict would be a losing proposition for their enemies.

BIDEN ANNOUNCES PERMANENT BASE IN POLAND, STRENGTHENING OF NATO’S EASTERN FLANK

“The circumstances in which NATO might have to use nuclear weapons are extremely remote,” the Strategic Concept reads. “Any employment of nuclear weapons against NATO would fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict. The Alliance has the capabilities and resolve to impose costs on an adversary that would be unacceptable and far outweigh the benefits that any adversary could hope to achieve.”

That’s a more forceful warning than the analogous section of the 2010 document, in which the alliance emphasized that "circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote.” The revision also placed more emphasis on France and the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons in an apparent effort to signal that the threat of nuclear retaliation for a Russian nuclear attack wouldn’t depend solely on an American president.

"The independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France have a deterrent role of their own and contribute significantly to the overall security of the Alliance,” the 2022 document now reads. “These Allies’ separate centers of decision-making contribute to deterrence by complicating the calculations of potential adversaries.”

The new document also shows more fundamental shifts in the strategic outlook of the allies. In 2010, NATO leaders could agree that “the alliance does not consider any country to be its adversary” and identified “the proliferation of ballistic missiles” as the most salient “real and growing threat to the Euro-Atlantic area” — an apparent reference to Iran’s non-nuclear military capabilities.

Where the arms control section of the 2010 concept could thus declare that "NATO seeks its security at the lowest possible level of [nuclear] forces,” now the allies see a need to deter multiple nuclear powers.

“We will individually and collectively deliver the full range of forces, capabilities, plans, resources, assets and infrastructure needed for deterrence and defense, including for high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors,” the new document reads.

The allies made their misgivings about Beijing’s nuclear weapons explicit elsewhere in this year's concept document. “The PRC is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal and is developing increasingly sophisticated delivery systems, without increasing transparency or engaging in good faith in arms control or risk reduction,” NATO said.

The U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard have released a new, overarching tri-service strategy document for how they plan to project maritime power together going forward. The document focuses heavily on how the three services expect to fight on the high seas and adjacent areas on land. However, there is also a very important underlying discussion about adopting a more assertive approach to responding to day-to-day challenges, especially from China, and to a lesser extent, Russia, among other potential adversaries, that are short of a shooting war.

The three services unveiled their new "integrated" strategy, titled "Advantage at Sea: Prevailing with Integrated All-Domain Naval Power," on Dec. 17, 2020. The document includes discussions about of a number of concepts of operation that the trio has been openly discussing, such as a greater focus on distributed operations leveraging a dramatically reorganized Marine Corps riding on smaller amphibious warfare ships, the increased use of unmanned aircraft and naval platforms, and distributed sensor and communications networks. There is also a "renewed emphasis on fighting for and gaining sea control" in light of growing concerns about a potential higher-end future naval fight with a major adversary, such as China or Russia.

In consultation with the intelligence community, U.S. military planners identify events that should be used for planning the size and mix of U.S. forces. There is a tension, however, between planning for the most likely situations as opposed to worst-case events. For example, large-scale, high-intensity conflicts like China invading Taiwan or Russia invading Latvia would be challenging for U.S. and allied militaries but are less likely compared to scenarios such as protracted gray-zone confrontations between China or Russia and their neighbors. U.S. planners usually choose high-intensity scenarios, although protracted conflicts may be harder for the U.S. military to address.

After the scenario subjects are decided, planners build a detailed description of the events leading up to the conflict, the expected actions of adversary, allied, and noncombatant governments and militaries, and the order of battle expected to be employed by each participating nation. Scenarios usually do not detail U.S. government or military actions.

Explain the conceptual framework in designing scenarios for non-conventional conflict.


Non-conventional conflicts are those that do not involve sustained combat between regular armed forces. Examples include insurgencies by militia forces being supported by a state aggressor, such as in Ukraine; harassment of opposing government and commercial activities in international airspace or waters, as in the East and South China Seas; or a de facto blockade of a disputed territory using militia, law enforcement, and civilian forces like that around the Senkaku Islands.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) plans for these events, but they are low priority. However, because they are less intense than traditional scenarios like invasions, non-conventional confrontations can be sustained longer by the aggressor and employ a wide range of proxy, civilian, and paramilitary forces that create challenges for the U.S. military. The predominance of large, highly capable units in U.S. forces makes protracted campaigns potentially unaffordable and reduces U.S. options at lower levels of escalation. As a result, the U.S. government can be portrayed as the aggressor in a non-conventional conflict because the forces it employs are disproportionate for the situation.Identify fundamental assumptions about how the U.S. might engage in conventional and non-conventional contest with China or Russia and explain how these assumptions should be tested in scenario risk analysis.

The DoD has evolved a strong set of assumptions regarding conventional conflicts. The U.S. military generally assumes it will not be the aggressor and will have some, potentially short, warning that will allow the mobilization of forces to the conflict area. Forces already deployed respond to aggression and attempt to delay or deny the enemy’s success while preparing for the arrival of additional forces from adjacent theaters or the continental United States.

The U.S. military has a less coherent view regarding non-conventional conflict. Because these scenarios occur below the level of armed combat, U.S. military forces are often not an appropriate response, but the U.S. government does not continuously deploy law enforcement forces like the Coast Guard or paramilitary units like contractors – although Coast Guard deployments to the Western Pacific are rising. The use of conventional forces is episodic and limited to shows of force, exercises, or freedom of navigation operations rather than directly countering the non-conventional aggression.

What are key challenges and opportunities for U.S. military planners in preparing for potential military confrontation involving China or Russia?

China and Russia are difficult to plan against because they pose multidimensional challenges in areas close to their own territory. Both countries established extensive sensor networks using radar, electronic intelligence, and space imagery around their territory that can be used for surveillance and targeting of a large inventory and variety of precision ballistic and cruise missiles. Their sensor and weapon networks give China and Russia the ability to conduct rapid, large-scale attacks in regions they have interests such as the East and South China Seas for China and Eastern Europe for Russia.

In a conventional conflict, Chinese or Russian missiles give their militaries the ability to delay U.S. reinforcements while quickly attacking U.S. allies to coerce them into submission. In a non-conventional conflict, China and Russia can threaten U.S. military forces and force U.S. commanders to either send in small units at high risk or employ larger units that can defend themselves but are disproportionate for the non-conventional confrontation. As evidenced by the success of Chinese or Russian gray-zone operations over the last decade, the U.S. government has not determined a satisfactory non-conventional response.

How should the new U.S. administration align defense spending allocation with emerging non-conventional threats?

The U.S. government will need a larger number of units that are smaller and less expensive to buy and maintain compared to today’s U.S. military. Less heavily-armed units such as Littoral Combat Ships, Coast Guard cutters, or company-size National Guard formations would be more proportional in non-conventional confrontations against Russian-supported proxy forces or People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia ships. These units would also be affordable enough to buy and operate in large enough numbers so they can sustain a robust presence in contested areas for a protracted periods.

Top US military commanders explained the new tactics to Congress in March in a series of budget hearings. The commandant of the US Marine Corps, Gen. David Berger, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5 that small units of Marines armed with precision missiles could assist the US Navy to gain control of the seas, particularly in the Western Pacific.

"The Tomahawk missile is one of the tools that is going to allow us to do that," he said.

The Tomahawk — which first gained fame when launched in massed strikes during the 1991 Gulf War — has been carried on US warships and used to attack land targets in recent decades. The Marines would test fire the cruise missile through 2022 with the aim of making it operational the following year, top Pentagon commanders testified.

At first, a relatively small number of land-based cruise missiles will not change the balance of power. But such a shift would send a strong political signal that Washington is preparing to compete with China's massive arsenal, according to senior US and other Western strategists.

Guided missile cruiser USS Cape St. George launches a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, March 23, 2003. US Navy/Intelligence Specialist 1st Class Kenneth Moll

Longer term, bigger numbers of these weapons combined with similar Japanese and Taiwanese missiles would pose a serious threat to Chinese forces, they say. The biggest immediate threat to the PLA comes from new, long-range anti-ship missiles now entering service with US Navy and Air Force strike aircraft.

"The Americans are coming back strongly," said Ross Babbage, a former senior Australian government defense official and now a non-resident fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a security research group. "By 2024 or 2025 there is a serious risk for the PLA that their military developments will be obsolete."

A Chinese military spokesman, Senior Col. Wu Qian, warned last October that Beijing would "not stand by" if Washington deployed land-based, long-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific region. China's foreign ministry accused the United States of sticking "to its Cold War mentality" and "constantly increasing military deployment" in the region.

"Recently, the United States has gotten worse, stepping up its pursuit of a so-called 'Indo-Pacific strategy' that seeks to deploy new weapons, including ground-launched intermediate-range missiles, in the Asia-Pacific region," the ministry said in a statement to Reuters. "China firmly opposes that."
US military unshackled
Royal Australian Navy guided-missile frigate HMAS Parramatta, left, with US Navy amphibious assault ship USS America, Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill, and Arleigh-Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Barry in the South China Sea, April 18, 2020. US Navy/MCS 3rd Class Nicholas Huynh via REUTERS

While the coronavirus pandemic rages, Beijing has increased its military pressure on Taiwan and exercises in the South China Sea.

In a show of strength, on April 11 the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning led a flotilla of five other warships into the Western Pacific through the Miyako Strait to the northeast of Taiwan, according to Taiwan's Defense Ministry. On April 12, the Chinese warships exercised in waters east and south of Taiwan, the ministry said.

Meanwhile, the US Navy was forced to tie up the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt at Guam while it battles to contain a coronavirus outbreak among the crew of the giant warship. However, the US Navy managed to maintain a powerful presence off the Chinese coast.


The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry passed through the Taiwan Strait twice in April. And the amphibious assault ship USS America last month exercised in the East China Sea and South China Sea, the US Indo-Pacific Command said.

In a series last year, Reuters reported that while the US was distracted by almost two decades of war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the PLA had built a missile force designed to attack the aircraft carriers, other surface warships and network of bases that form the backbone of American power in Asia. Over that period, Chinese shipyards built the world's biggest navy, which is now capable of dominating the country's coastal waters and keeping US forces at bay.

The series also revealed that in most categories, China's missiles now rival or outperform counterparts in the armories of the US alliance.
A float carrying a portrait of Chinese President Xi Jinping in Tiananmen Square during the parade marking the 70th founding anniversary of People's Republic of China, on its National Day in Beijing, October 1, 2019. REUTERS/Thomas Peter

China derived an advantage because it was not party to a Cold War-era treaty — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) — that banned the United States and Russia from possessing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges from 500 kilometers to 5,500 kilometers. Unrestrained by the INF pact, China has deployed about 2,000 of these weapons, according to US and other Western estimates.


While building up its missile forces on land, the PLA also fitted powerful, long-range anti-ship missiles to its warships and strike aircraft.

This accumulated firepower has shifted the regional balance of power in China's favor. The United States, long the dominant military power in Asia, can no longer be confident of victory in a military clash in waters off the Chinese coast, according to senior retired US military officers.

But the decision by President Donald Trump last year to exit the INF treaty has given American military planners new leeway. Almost immediately after withdrawing from the pact on August 2, the administration signaled it would respond to China's missile force. The next day, US Secretary for Defense Mark Esper said he would like to see ground-based missiles deployed in Asia within months, but he acknowledged it would take longer.

Later that month, the Pentagon tested a ground-launched Tomahawk cruise missile. In December, it tested a ground-launched ballistic missile. The INF treaty banned such ground-launched weapons, and thus both tests would have been forbidden.

The Defense Department tests a conventionally configured ground-launched cruise missile at San Nicolas Island, California, August 18, 2019. DoD photo by Scott Howe

A senior Marines commander, Lt. Gen. Eric Smith, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 11 that the Pentagon leadership had instructed the Marines to field a ground-launched cruise missile "very quickly."

The budget documents show that the Marines have requested $125 million to buy 48 Tomahawk missiles from next year. The Tomahawk has a range of 1,600km, according to its manufacturer, Raytheon Company.

Smith said the cruise missile may not ultimately prove to be the most suitable weapon for the Marines. "It may be a little too heavy for us," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee, but experience gained from the tests could be transferred to the army.

Smith also said the Marines had successfully tested a new shorter-range anti-ship weapon, the Naval Strike Missile, from a ground launcher and would conduct another test in June. He said if that test was successful, the Marines intended to order 36 of these missiles in 2022.

Naval Strike Missile launch from USS Coronado (LCS-4) in September 2014. US Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Zachary D. Bell

The US Army is also testing a new long-range, land-based missile that can target warships. This missile would have been prohibited under the INF treaty.

The Marine Corps said in a statement it was evaluating the Naval Strike Missile to target ships and the Tomahawk for attacking targets on land. Eventually, the Marines aimed to field a system "that could engage long-range moving targets either on land or sea," the statement said.

The Defense Department also has research underway on new, long-range strike weapons, with a budget request of $3.2 billion for hypersonic technology, mostly for missiles.

China's foreign ministry drew a distinction between the PLA's arsenal of missiles and the planned US deployment.


It said China's missiles were "located in its territory, especially short and medium-range missiles, which cannot reach the mainland of the United States. This is fundamentally different from the US, which is vigorously pushing forward deployment."
Bottling up China's navy
Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier REUTERS/Bobby Yip

Military strategists James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara suggested almost a decade ago that the first island chain was a natural barrier that could be exploited by the American military to counter the Chinese naval build-up. Ground-based anti-ship missiles could command key passages through the island chain into the Western Pacific as part of a strategy to keep the rapidly expanding Chinese navy bottled up, they suggested.

In embracing this strategy, Washington is attempting to turn Chinese tactics back on the PLA. Senior US commanders have warned that China's land-based cruise and ballistic missiles would make it difficult for US and allied navies to operate near China's coastal waters.

But deploying ground-based US and allied missiles in the island chain would pose a similar threat to Chinese warships — to vessels operating in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Yellow Sea, or ships attempting to break out into the Western Pacific. Japan and Taiwan have already deployed ground-based anti-ship missiles for this purpose.


"We need to be able to plug up the straits," said Holmes, a professor at the US Naval War College. "We can, in effect, ask them if they want Taiwan or the Senkakus badly enough to see their economy and armed forces cut off from the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. In all likelihood the answer will be no."

Holmes was referring to the uninhabited group of isles in the East China Sea — known as the Senkaku islands in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China — that are claimed by both Tokyo and Beijing.
The approximate boundaries of the first and second island chains in the western Pacific. US Defense Department

The United States faces challenges in plugging the first island chain. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte's decision to distance himself from the United States and forge closer ties with China is a potential obstacle to American plans. US forces could face barriers to operating from strategically important islands in the Philippines archipelago after Duterte in February scrapped a key security agreement with Washington.

And if US forces do deploy in the first island chain with anti-ship missiles, some US strategists believe this won't be decisive, as the Marines would be vulnerable to strikes from the Chinese military.


The United States has other counterweights. The firepower of long-range US Air Force bombers could pose a bigger threat to Chinese forces than the Marines, the strategists said. Particularly effective, they said, could be the stealthy B-21 bomber, which is due to enter service in the middle of this decade, armed with long-range missiles.

The Pentagon is already moving to boost the firepower of its existing strike aircraft in Asia. US Navy Super Hornet jets and Air Force B-1 bombers are now being armed with early deliveries of Lockheed Martin's new Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, according to the budget request documents.

The new missile is being deployed in response to an "urgent operational need" for the US Pacific Command, the documents explain.

The new missile carries a 450 kilogram warhead and is capable of "semi-autonomous" targeting, giving it some ability to steer itself, according to the budget request. Details of the stealthy cruise missile's range are classified. But US and other Western military officials estimate it can strike targets at distances greater than 800 kilometers.


The budget documents show the Pentagon is seeking $224 million to order another 53 of these missiles in 2021. The US Navy and Air Force expect to have more than 400 of them in service by 2025, according to orders projected in the documents.
An Air Force B1-B Lancer bomber launches a Long Range Anti-Ship Missile during flight testing in August 2013. U.S. Navy

This new anti-ship missile is derived from an existing Lockheed long-range, land attack weapon, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. The Pentagon is asking for $577 million next year to order another 400 of these land-attack missiles.

"The US and allied focus on long-range land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles was the quickest way to rebuild long-range conventional firepower in the Western Pacific region," said Robert Haddick, a former US Marine Corps officer and now a visiting senior fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies based in Arlington, Virginia.

For the US Navy in Asia, Super Hornet jets operating from aircraft carriers and armed with the new anti-ship missile would deliver a major boost in firepower while allowing the expensive warships to operate further away from potential threats, US and other Western military officials say.


Current and retired US Navy officers have been urging the Pentagon to equip American warships with longer-range anti-ship missiles that would allow them to compete with the latest, heavily armed Chinese cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Lockheed has said it successfully test-fired one of the new Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles from the type of launcher used on US and allied warships.

Haddick, one of the first to draw attention to China's firepower advantage in his 2014 book, "Fire on the Water," said the threat from Chinese missiles had galvanized the Pentagon with new strategic thinking and budgets now directed at preparing for high-technology conflict with powerful nations like China.

Haddick said the new missiles were critical to the defensive plans of America and its allies in the Western Pacific. The gap won't close immediately, but firepower would gradually improve, Haddick said.

"This is especially true during the next half-decade and more, as successor hypersonic and other classified munition designs complete their long periods of development, testing, production, and deployment," he said.