{"id":3485,"date":"2014-03-31T17:03:22","date_gmt":"2014-03-31T22:03:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hcstx.org\/?p=3485"},"modified":"2014-03-31T17:03:22","modified_gmt":"2014-03-31T22:03:22","slug":"chinas-three-warfares","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/2014\/03\/31\/chinas-three-warfares\/","title":{"rendered":"China’s “Three Warfares”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Taken from \u00a0American Thinker.Com<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/strong>, this \u00a0“Day-late-and-a-Dollar-Short”<\/strong> Pentagon Study shows that China is again re-shaping the 4th Gen Warfare model. While some in the Pentagon may think these strategies are still in the early “planning stages”, consider the recent high number of deaths and “suicides” in the global finance sector and \u00a0qualify that with China’s “Financial Attack” plan…..no, the pieces are already being moved around the board while America is standing flat-footed waiting for signs of conventional aggression..lets wake up.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

March 31, 2014<\/div>\n

China’s ‘Three Warfares’<\/h1>\n
By\u00a0Robert Kozloski<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

A recently released Pentagon study examines how China is preparing for future conflict and it is vastly different from the future wars envisioned by many in the Pentagon.\u00a0 Over the past decade, many have said the United States was playing checkers during conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan while its adversaries were playing chess; it appears as though America is heading in that direction again.<\/p>\n

\"\"The new report, obtained by the\u00a0Free Beacon<\/a>, identified that China recognizes the limited utility of nuclear and even conventional military force, and to pursue its political objectives, China is preparing for what is called the three warfares:\u00a0 psychological, media, and legal.\u00a0 These warfare techniques allow China to achieve strategic objectives using new military technology that has not been considered in the past by the West. The report concludes the Pentagon is not ready to counter these tactics and the White House must take action.<\/p>\n

While these approaches may appear to be benign, they are not. Chinese strategists believe that psychological warfare, for example, should be included in any long-term strategy. Nonviolent intimidation, media manipulation, economic sanctions,\u00a0financial<\/span>\u00a0attacks<\/strong><\/em>, information isolation, and network attacks are all valid tactics. All three warfares fit neatly into a much broader coercion model.<\/p>\n

\"\"The American approach to future conflict is best personified by mixed-martial artist Brock Lesnar. Lesnar is big, slow, expensive, and wields devastating power, yet he has achieved mixed results inside the cage.\u00a0 America\u2019s approach is articulated in the Pentagon\u2019s concept of\u00a0Air-Sea Battle<\/a>. Air-Sea Battle is an updated version of the Air-Land Battle strategy for the defense of Europe during the Cold War. Air-Sea Battle fundamentally relies upon the western view of military force, a view succinctly characterized by defense expertRichard Betts\u2019\u00a0<\/a>definition: \u201ckilling people and destroying things for some political purpose\u201d.<\/p>\n

While China is developing less-lethal approaches to warfare, the Pentagon appears to moving in the opposite direction.\u00a0 The latest studies have shown that weapon systems are becoming more lethal and some programs have been criticized by Pentagon insiders for not being lethal enough.\u00a0 Recently, Christine Fox\u00a0limited\u00a0<\/a>the production of a class of Navy ship and demanded a new, more lethal model be built.<\/p>\n

This push for greater lethality is occurring during a period of decreased casualties in state-level conflicts. As some\u00a0foreign policy experts\u00a0<\/a>recognize, during World War II hardly any Americans objected to the incineration of hundreds of\u00a0thousands of\u00a0Japanese civilians, and throughout the Cold War few objected to the principle of killing on an even wider scale in retaliation for a Soviet attack. Today, post-Cold War norms and Pentagon lawyers have put those ideas out of bounds and that type of thinking is no longer deemed legitimate.<\/div>\n

This disparity in approaches to conflict may lead to strategic paralysis if America does not explore other options. As renowned military strategist Colin S. Grayremarked<\/a>, during irregular conflicts in the future the U.S. armed forces \u201cwill need to curb their traditional, indeed cultural, love affair with firepower. \u201dAmerican military leaders must fully consider options below the lethal threshold and create a broad strategy for\u00a0non-lethal force<\/a>. \u00a0The emerging fields of information-based weapons, wide-area non-lethal weapons, and directed energy weapons may provide policy makers with better options outside the traditional warfighting paradigm.<\/p>\n

State-level conflicts are certainly undesirable but history has shown they are largely unavoidable, particularly during periods of power shifts, which appears to be underway in the Asia-Pacific region.\u00a0 As technology matures, these capabilities could be used as coercive levers on a spectrum between imposing economic sanctions and going to war.\u00a0 For example, information blockades could be used to limit all forms of electronic communications, wide-area denial weapons could be used to prevent the occupation of disputed territory, and non-lethal force could be used to terminate conflicts and prevent escalation. There are many options and it is likely the most effective ones have yet to be conceptualized.<\/p>\n

By comparing Israel\u2019s use of conventional military force against Iraq\u2019s Osirak reactor in 1981 to the use of the Stuxnet computer virus on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2010, it is clear that the way states engage in interstate conflict is evolving.\u00a0 As technology continues to advance, new military capabilities will emerge.\u00a0 As some futurists argue, wars will be fought without human fatalities and with far less human involvement. This scenario will make today\u2019s international relations models obsolete.<\/p>\n

The White House, Congress and the American public should compare the findings of three warfares report to the current U.S. military strategy. America is headed down a path that may leave it ill-prepared to counter future challenges, particularly as it attempts to maintain its position within the internal system.\u00a0 As society has witnessed a dramatic transformation from the industrial age to the information age, we should expect to see a commensurate level of change in how we prepare for interstate conflict. Brock Lesnar\u2019s retirement from mixed martial arts should be a harbinger to all.<\/p>\n

Robert Kozloski works for the Department of the Navy. The views expressed herein are his alone.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Taken from \u00a0American Thinker.Com, this \u00a0“Day-late-and-a-Dollar-Short” Pentagon Study shows that China is again re-shaping the 4th Gen Warfare model. While some in the Pentagon may think these strategies are still in the early “planning stages”, consider the recent high number of deaths and “suicides” in the global finance sector and \u00a0qualify that with China’s “Financial…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[74],"tags":[748,817,750,818],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3485"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thetacticalhermit.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3485"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}