Rudy Giuliani, the presumptive secretary of state in the Trump administration, said that Trump intends to prioritize building a âgiganticâ military force to blunt Chinaâs ambitions in the Pacific.
Speaking to business leaders in Washington on Tuesday, Giuliani said the US would increase its number of troops to 550,000, instead of shrinking it to 420,000. He also said they intended to take the navy up to 350 ships. It currently has around 280, but the plan is to decrease to 247: (brackets by the Wrongologist)
At 350, [ships] China canât match us in the Pacific. At 247 ships, we canât fight a two-ocean war; we gave up the Pacific. If you face them with a military that is modern, gigantic, overwhelming and unbelievably good at conventional and asymmetric warfare, they may challenge it, but I doubt it
Out of the probable Clinton/Nuland frying pan, into the reality of the Trump/Giuliani dumpster fire.
The Trump plan is to build up the Navy in order to fight a âtwo-ocean warâ. Itâs going to be difficult to build that size fleet in four years. A 350 ship Navy will be prohibitively expensive â the Navyâs new DD(X) destroyers cost $4 billion each; 70 new ships @ $4 billion each is $2.8 trillion, (and it might be more like 100 ships). But the DD(X) is not yet proven to work very well in rough seas, which seems a bit of a problem.
Giuliani thinks that China wouldnât challenge 350 ships. He may be correct. That will stretch our economy, and it would certainly stretch Chinaâs. China of course, is likely to respond with a military build-up of its own: They can probably build 350 (or more) anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads in four years, and have the ability to blow up quite a number of the Giuliani-class navy vessels if necessary.
Want to see a few more Pacific reefs? A US/China military contest could deliver them.
Trump ran to the left of Clinton regarding Russia and the Middle East. He spoke about normalizing relations with Russia and lately, he has said Russia and the US should cooperate on defeating ISIS in Syria. What is the point of seeking decent relations with Russia, the other nuclear super-power, if you are going to press a military bet with the third largest nuclear weapons state?
We thought that Trump wanted a trade war with China, but we were only half right. Heâs going to re-engage with battleship diplomacy, in true Ronald Reagan Cold War fashion.
Trump wouldnât bother augmenting the Pacific fleet unless his objective was to try to out-gun, out-spend, out-trade and outright suppress the rise of China.
That strategy will lead to a sharp Chinese response. It isnât at all clear that Russia would stay neutral in this power game. Russia might support China, like they did in the 1950s. Forbes says this: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
Although the Chinese and Russians may not be natural economic allies due to historical grievances…and alleged xenophobia of Russians toward Chinese businessmen, an expanded alliance between the two countries could unfold if either presidential hopeful, particularly Donald Trump, acts on promises to get tough on China…A Chinese-Russian economic relationship that develops naturally, rather than out of security fears on both ends, is one that is more favorable to the US.
There has always been some sense in a muscular China policy. That was why Obamaâs plan was to âpivotâ toward Asia.
China shows every intention of expanding its influence outward. Containment has always been our best option with them, unless you believe in military confrontation. We should continue the current strategy of promoting/supporting resistance by Chinaâs neighbors, supporting a regional arms buildup by South Korea, Japan, India, Vietnam and others. We can hope that this strategy will, over time, convince the Chinese to give up their imperial dream of dominating the South China Sea and its contiguous states.
Trump got elected on a more isolationist premise than Clintonâs or Obamaâs. He led people to believe that heâd be far more focused on domestic policy and domestic security, including things like terrorism and immigration.
But since GOP controlled Congress will move quickly to end the Sequester, which could add $500 billion in defense spending over the next decade, now it seems that his administration will be more hawkish, possibly even more than what Hillary Clinton would have wanted.
Canât we put these war-mongering dinosaurs out to pasture? Then they can dress up like WWII Generals and play out their global dominance fantasies whenever they want.
