Red Dragon Rises
In Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism she makes a fascinating observation of the German people’s reaction to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
We forget that Nazi Germany was an empire, not a nation-state. The German masses believed the Protocols and wanted the Germans to displace the Jews as the masters of the world. We can see a similar thinking in China today.
First, David Goldman reminds us that China is an empire, not a nation state.
China is not a nation-state, but rather an imperial structure composed of highly diverse peoples and tongues, always subject to centrifugal pressures which in time of crisis have led to the division of the empire at frightful human cost
Second, the ancient Chinese idea of Tianxia provides an enduring cultural foundation for the Chinese people to support global imperial rule.
In ancient China and imperial China, tianxia denoted the lands, space, and area divinely appointed to the Chinese sovereign by universal and well-defined principles of order. The center of this land was directly apportioned to the Chinese court, forming the center of a world view that centered on the Chinese court and went concentrically outward to major and minor officials and then the common subjects, tributary states, and finally ending with fringe "barbarians".
As as described in Part One of my China series, the nine-dash line represents the Chinese empire’s first attempt to rewrite the rules underpinning U.S. world order. I believe the U.S. military is wholly unprepared to push back against China’s attempt to rewrite the rules.
At first sight this may sound strange. Many have raved at the ability of American Javelins and HIMARS systems to stymie Russian imperial ambitions in Ukraine. The Javelin received sainthood and a song was dedicated to the HIMARS. Why is the U.S. unprepared?
Not Enough Ammo: Javelin & Stingers
Around two months ago I discussed America’s dwindling supplies of shoulder fired anti-tank (Javelin) and anti-air (Stinger) missiles. This potential supply constraint directly threatens the reforms shepherded by the head of the U.S. Marine Corp, David Berger. Those reforms involve transforming the Marines into a smaller yet more lethal force. Two great examples of this occurred in 2021.
Twice, the Marines practiced firing shoulder fired missiles from unassuming rubber water crafts. Both demonstrations occurred near Okinawa, Japan. In February 2021, Marines practiced firing their Stinger Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) from rubber water crafts.
A few months later a different group of Marines practiced firing their Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM) from a rubber watercraft. This innovative tactic will allow the US Marines to fight back asymmetrically against China, only if they possess enough missiles to fire.
Not Enough Ammo: HIMARS
In that same article I also warned that similar problems may emerge regarding ammunition for the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS). The U.S. possesses around 30,000 rockets to launch from HIMARS and has given Ukraine 16 HIMARS launchers. Those 16 launchers, if firing their full load twice every day, would use 5,800 rockets per month.
The U.S. can replace those rockets, albeit very slowly. Lockheed Martin produces the most exquisite U.S. rocket, the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS). Lockheed can produce at maximum 10,000 rockets per year, but Congress only requested half of that amount for this coming fiscal year.
Depending on how much rockets Ukraine uses, a major problem may befall the U.S. Marine Corp. As I described in Part Two of my China series, as the Marines divest from tanks and towed artillery the importance of the HIMARS drastically increases. It goes without saying that without rockets to fire, HIMARS are merely fancy trucks.
Logistics
Much ink has been spilled regarding the logistics failures of the Russian military during its invasion of Ukraine. The U.S. encounters a far more difficult challenge supplying its forces in the Pacific. To replenish U.S. forces engaging in combat with China, the U.S. would need to send supplies across the entirety of the Pacific Ocean. Are Americans ready to protect a 5,000 mile supply line?
Nearly four years ago Mark Buzby, head of the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration answered that question in the negative.
The Navy has been candid enough with Military Sealift Command and me that they will probably not have enough ships to escort us. It’s: ‘You’re on your own; go fast, stay quiet’
In 2019, Lt. Elee Wakim followed up by writing
America’s ability to sustain its forces abroad and project power from the sea is brittle, tenuously maintained by an aging fleet that is undermaintained and overworked
Lt. Wakim also noted that the Navy’s focus on distributed operations (essentially more dispersal of forces, less concentration) will necessitate an even more advanced sealift capability that the U.S. currently possesses.
A few weeks ago War on the Rocks sounded the alarm again on this issue
The past 30 years of U.S. military operations have seen steady reliance on just such large, slow, easy-target vessels for logistics supply across the oceans. These large craft, previously used to build ‘iron mountains’ of materiel, will be unsuitable for operating effectively in the Indo-Pacific. Their size makes them relatively easy targets at sea or in port, and they are required to operate at functioning ports for onload or offload — a risky bet in a highly contested theater.
Conclusion
The U.S. may not possess enough missiles for their Javelins and Stingers, enough rockets for their HIMARS, and the capability to protect resupply ships traversing the Pacific Ocean. It is the interest of the U.S. to keep tensions low while the U.S. military prepare for a fight against China. Instead of visiting Taiwan Speaker Pelosi should focus on passing legislation to replenish U.S. supplies of missiles and rockets while giving the Navy the resources needed to protect U.S. naval logistic vessels. This is how you send a message to China.