Military Review

The Pentagon is afraid of "asymmetric advantages" of Russia and China

20
Senior US military officials are thinking about measures that the Pentagon should take in the context of building military capabilities by Russia and China. It is about neutralizing the likely consequences of advancing potential adversaries in the areas of high-tech weapons. High officials from the US Department of Defense, it turns out, are afraid that the Russians and Chinese will get some “asymmetric” advantages by improving weapons and destroying the dominance of American warships on the planet and aviation.


Pentagon generals and admirals intend to gather in the coming weeks and “think about” what the US Department of Defense should undertake: after all, Russia and China continue to strengthen their military capabilities and narrow the gap with great America.

The Pentagon is afraid of "asymmetric advantages" of Russia and China
Air Force General P. Selva


This is written by Sandra Erwin in the publication "National Defense".

This “discussion” can help politicians form decisions about how much money they need to spend, what policies to pursue in the field of strategy and what “organizational changes” in the Ministry of Defense will need in order to “compensate opponents' successes” in high-tech weapons like “high-precision” weapons and air defense systems. "

It turns out that Pentagon fighters in terrible dreams see the Chinese along with Russians using “asymmetrical” countermeasures to “conquer” the world, constantly improving their “high-precision weapons” and getting ready to negate the usual “dominance of warships and US aircraft” and their allies. “Our competitors are approaching us with these capabilities!” Says Air Force general Paul J. Selva, deputy. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The arms race in the field of precision-guided ammunition has not yet been lost by the United States, but opponents are already advancing on America’s heels, Selva said. Moreover, the Chinese and Russians, “may have already got the upper hand over us in terms of the range of action”. True, they (the Russians) do not yet have enough sense to surpass the Americans "in accuracy or ability to achieve a complex effect." Who is the first to catch up with America, the Russians or the Chinese, Selva does not know. But be sure to find out. It was decided to conduct a "series of war games and experiments" - in order to "try to get an answer to this question."

At present, the Pentagon is trying to “push this process to a higher level of discussion,” and not only to discuss whether the Russians are doing something “cool” or not, Selva noted. The Pentagonists have already come up with a strategy called “Third offset”: its goal is to find out what the US is doing differently and what can be changed by applying technology, operational concepts and organizational structures to overcome the advantages of Russians and Chinese in high-precision systems that allow strikes over a longer range.

A “war game” is already underway, taking into account Selva’s recommendations, the article notes. Soon this game will increase its level: the leaders and deputy heads of services will join it, as well as regional combat commanders. Next, the Pentagon will hear their opinions.

The new strategy also provides for an analysis of the “Russian military operation in Ukraine.” “The experience of Ukraine is instructive,” Selva thinks. After all, the Russians had trained “separatist forces”, from which they emerged a “combat-ready army”, capable of waging even electronic warfare.

Well, Syria. There are “similar trends,” Mr. Selva said.

In addition, he referred to "strategic nuclear deterrence." True, discussions about this kind of "containment", it turns out, "go beyond the Pentagon," because "they require national financial commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars" aimed at "upgrading the country’s aging intercontinental nuclear missiles, long-range bombers and submarines", which the aggregate is known as the “nuclear triad”.

Selva is sure that "it is worth paying for the entire triad," but "you need to understand how to talk about it," how to give "a justification for the need for a nuclear triad." Selva thinks that as long as the Americans have such a triad, they will fight back all the best and all.

Meanwhile, military analysts fear that the "clumsy" decision-making process of the "Pentagon machine" will lead to another "bind" in the papers and red tape.

Jerry Hendrix, a senior researcher at the Center for New American Security, believes that all these attempts in the field of the “Third offset” strategy will give America only 5 or 10 years “extra”, not more. Mr. Hendricks hinted at the interest of Russians and Chinese in some “industrial” data: they say that in the commercial industry there is a “technical data leak”, and here it is, and it allows the enemies of the United States to create their “precision weapons”.

Andrew P. Hunter, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, shares the same opinion. After all, at least two thirds of global arms investments come from the private sector, he noted. And the “dark side” of this trend is “the wide spread of technologies that can be used against the US military machine.” As for the Pentagon, he, alas, "cannot stop the growing democratization of technologies."

* * *


What the fighters from the Pentagon and their pocket "experts" will not think up for the sake of increasing the military budget - the very thing that the peacemaker Obama calls "defensive". The ubiquitous Chinese and Russians are behind every US industrial secret related to the war machine of “great America”, they are improving their “precision weapons” and are preparing to remake the world in such a way that there will no longer be a place for US domination. Oh God!

Presumably, while the Americans are playing their “strategic games,” the Russians slowly ... redo the world.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zurbagan63
    zurbagan63 22 March 2016 06: 31
    +2
    Moderate your warlike fervor, dear Americans, and all will be well. We and China do not need foreign territories. And what to do with them? with territories ...
    1. sgazeev
      sgazeev 22 March 2016 07: 02
      +1
      Quote: zurbagan63
      Moderate your warlike fervor, dear Americans, and all will be well. We and China do not need foreign territories. And what to do with them? with territories ...
    2. sa-zz
      sa-zz 22 March 2016 07: 04
      +2
      Quote: zurbagan63
      We and China do not need foreign territories.

      At the expense of China - not sure. There really are a lot of them, they do not fit already.
      It will be easier for them to conquer America than Russia, and in Latin America they gain a fairly intense foothold
      1. Azitral
        Azitral 22 March 2016 09: 43
        0
        In Latin America, where you get in, you get off there. New, brand new ethnic groups, the boiling ends, the crystallization of new concepts, elites (no longer "pseudo"!), Ways to live in general begins. Societies are emerging from adolescence, and I strongly suspect that by the end of the century it will not be Anglo-Saxons, not Chinese and we will not be at the forefront of development, but Latinos. And China - China will be in South America, why not? But as much as Latin Americans need it.
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 23 March 2016 00: 22
        0
        Quote: sa-zz
        It will be easier for them to conquer America than Russia

        Yes, I wouldn’t say that. The creeping expansion of China in the Far East objectively takes place to be, and we also play along with it: take the same TORs, for example. At such a pace in 20-30 years you can play out before the referendum on joining, say, the Primorsky Territory to China. Of course, under the strict guidance of polite green men in the form of the PLA.
    3. EvgNik
      EvgNik 22 March 2016 08: 01
      +3
      Quote: zurbagan63
      We and China do not need foreign territories

      But the West vitally needs our territories. Preferably without a population.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 23 March 2016 00: 17
        0
        Quote: EvgNik
        But the West vitally needs our territories. Preferably without a population.

        Truth? What for? The West does not give a damn about our territories; they have enough space there.
  2. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 22 March 2016 06: 32
    +8
    Finally, our counterintelligence service was fully operational. And finally "closed" the information flowing from many of our defense enterprises, like water from a leaky samovar ... I notice this from many signs, especially at work ... Here the striped ears were confused. Previously, they didn't even have to strain too much, a pack of green pieces of paper, and they'll bring you everything "in your mouth", including secret developments. Their intelligence has relaxed, and Their military-industrial complex has also relaxed, preferring to bake "wunderwafli" at a higher price, and whether they are necessary or not - so who is it to explain? Wars against a technologically inferior enemy will relax anyone you want. And then suddenly - bang (either "Caliber" on the head, then with cast iron bombs from the WWII times, falling like high-precision ammunition ...) - and you are no longer "the first guy in the village", but you won't immediately understand who .. ...
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 22 March 2016 09: 48
      +2
      First, first - do not flatter yourself. But not in everything and, most importantly, not everywhere. Rome outnumbered Parthia once every fifteen times, but fought far from its borders and at the very borders of Parthia. And, accordingly, the ogreb according to the full program with a crushing score. It was then that they killed Mark Crassus, the winner of Spartacus and the richest man in Rome ...
  3. qwert
    qwert 22 March 2016 07: 10
    +4
    While Russia keeps money in US papers. While the Russian oligarchs keep their grandmothers in US banks, there is nothing to be afraid of.
    That's when all this returns to the country, like the children of high-ranking officials starting with the president, then they should think about it. In the meantime, they only frighten their public in order to direct money to the necessary projects and distract from internal problems.
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 22 March 2016 10: 23
      +1
      You are right in many respects, but you don’t notice one aspect: do we need our people in Europe, on the Island, in the USA? Absolutely official, but at the same time, influential?
      And whom to send there? Orphans? Children of workers and peasants? They, of course, are more stable and worse processed, more difficult to buy and less likely to betray? The black-and-white look is good at the level of a partisan detachment, and not with regard to the practice of a complex, gigantic, active country. I do not agree with another, but will do what is ordered without wrecking. Other dissatisfied, but in no case betray. It is necessary to keep an eye on someone, since the employee is good and has access to many places, it is difficult and long to replace. On the contrary, someone should be kept in office, for the most part so that he is in front of his eyes. Still need absolution. You yourself will find plenty of options.
  4. Ros 56
    Ros 56 22 March 2016 07: 35
    +2
    Well, you are striped so stupid, there is only one answer to the "asymmetric advantages", be people yourself and treat others like yourself, that's all. This will not happen - pride will destroy you, you can be sure that you are not the first, you are not the last. Study history, dropouts.
  5. beer-youk
    beer-youk 22 March 2016 07: 39
    +3
    Quote: qwert
    While Russia keeps money in US papers. While the Russian oligarchs keep their grandmothers in US banks, there is nothing to be afraid of.


    This is not so bad. But the fact that our educational system, instead of creators (scientists and engineers) produces freeloaders (lawyers and economists) is a disaster!
  6. SveTok
    SveTok 22 March 2016 07: 59
    +3
    There comes a time when the US Air Force will coordinate all its actions with Russia or China and there will no longer be a bluff.
    1. iouris
      iouris 22 March 2016 09: 16
      +1
      It's like, "Can we bomb Korea a little bit"?
      1. Galich Kos
        Galich Kos 22 March 2016 09: 26
        0
        Quote: iouris
        It's like, "Can we bomb Korea a little bit"?



        And in response, barking "NO" and, that's it, the bombing is canceled. This is what we are talking about.
  7. Hooks
    Hooks 22 March 2016 08: 45
    +1
    And what, the "defense" budget has not yet been approved?
  8. cap
    cap 22 March 2016 09: 28
    0

    Andrew P. Hunter, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, shares roughly the same opinion. After all, at least two-thirds of the world's investment in weapons comes from the private sector, he said. And the 'dark side' of this trend is' widespread technologies that can be used against the US military machine. ”As for the Pentagon, alas, it“ cannot stop the growing democratization of technology. ”


    "... alas," cannot stop ... "

    "... d ... dummy richer" (c) laughing
  9. Vetal999
    Vetal999 22 March 2016 09: 50
    +2
    After reading this, I am more and more convinced of the correctness of the words of Jacob Kedmi.
    By 2030, the Chinese economy, if it does not interfere, will surpass the US economy (according to him, almost 3 times -?). In order for the Chinese armies to equal or surpass the Yankees, they need resources and technology.
    At one time, the United States asked our question: you, in this future conflict, with whom, with us, with China? Ours chose China. The reasons were not voiced, but I think that the Anglo-Saxons are our systemic enemies, tk. they shit and shit constantly, the word and agreements are not respected - it is impossible to count on a contract with them (there are many examples of this).
    The United States thought: oh so! And NATO sharply climbed east, a series of revolution took place, the destruction of Ukraine, sanctions, economic pressure and sabotage in China, the Chinese Sea and Taiwan.
    The goals of this all: to knock Russia out of the tandem by economic pressure, political (including) internal destabilization, to take missiles from eastern Europe, the Baltic states, and Ukraine into their sight.
    Just crush China.
    Pi ndosy what they said when they asked the Congress for money: "We are not yet ready for a war with Russia."
    And the question is: what kind of war? Will Russia land in America? The war in Europe and / or in such intermediate non-territory? Or is it a war on the territory of Russia?
    1. Karlovar
      Karlovar 22 March 2016 12: 08
      0
      1000 plusov!
  10. tehnokrat
    tehnokrat 22 March 2016 15: 09
    0
    Quote: zurbagan63
    Temper your warlike fervor, dear Americans

    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Theirs military-industrial complex, which prefers a more expensive "wunderwafle" oven

    And here's another thing, you are our "partners": correct the name - "PONTOGON" - it will be more correct. You've got enough to fight the unarmed remotely, but it won't work with us and the Chinese.