新闻取自各大新闻媒体，仅用于汉语学习交流，新闻内容并不代表本网站立场
资料图：中国二炮部队进行导弹发射演练。
亚太武力竞赛美国没有胜算
6月13日，美国和印度在华盛顿举行了第三轮战略对话。但是印度显然对牺牲中印关系，加入美国围堵中国的行列表现出谨慎态度。
近日，美国《外交政策》杂志和印度《商业标准报》都撰文，对美国在亚太围堵中国的新战略表示质疑。《外交政策》杂志的文章甚至称，“美国在与中国的冲突中根本就没有机会进行舰艇对舰艇的决斗”。
“新亚洲战略”只是老调重弹
美国《小型战争》杂志编辑罗伯特·哈蒂克在《外交政策》杂志上撰文称，在香格里拉对话的演讲中，美国国防部长帕内塔试图让他的听众们相信，美国在亚太地区执行的“力量再平衡”战略——以往这个战略被称为“战略转移”。从帕内塔的发言可以看出，美国是认真的，而且未来会扩大在亚太地区的军事力量。帕内塔宣布，到2020年美国海军的六成军力将会被部署到太平洋地区。他还公开谈论了颇具争议的“空海一体战”概念，同时帕内塔否认这种向亚太增兵和新的作战计划是对中国的威胁。
资料图：解放军红旗-9导弹霸气十足。
美国海军情报处预测，中国海军在这个十年的扩充将发生实质性的变化，特别是当解放军海军潜艇力量发生飞跃的时候。帕内塔所谈及的增加军事力量，以及诸如空海一体战这样的概念的确是必要的，但还不足以对亚太地区正在倾斜的军事平衡做出有效的反应。
帕内塔在发言中称，“目前美国海军的军事力量50%放在太平洋，剩下50%放在大西洋”，这种说法并不准确。根据美国国防部网站的信息，美国海军186艘主要常规战舰(包括航空母舰、巡洋舰、导弹驱逐舰、两栖战舰、攻击型核潜艇和巡航导弹潜艇)，其中101艘(或者说54%)目前已经被部署到太平洋。美国海军最新的30年造舰计划显示，到2020年这些主力作战舰艇的数量很可能维持在181艘，而60%意味着在2020年将有109艘主力战舰部署在亚太，那么与今天相比，战舰的数量只增加了8艘。
在另一方面，美国海军情报处预测称，2020年中国海军主力作战舰艇的数量将从2009年的86艘上升到106艘。这其中，有72艘很可能是攻击性潜艇，相比之下在“60%战舰部署到亚太”的设想下，到2020年美国海军部署在太平洋的潜艇数量只有29艘。在2020年后的20年里，美国海军的造舰计划在主力作战舰艇的数量方面并没有增加的迹象。中国未来的长期舰艇建造计划尚不为人所知，然而中国国防开支正以每年11.8%的速度增加。
资料图：中国东风-31战略导弹战斗部。
当然，仅仅计算主力作战舰艇的数量并不能说明问题的全部。关键是这些舰艇将被赋予什么样的任务，以及它们将在什么样的条件下作战。就一场因控制南海和东海而在中国海军与美国海军之间爆发的冲突中，常规陆基作战力量将比美军具有更坚实的结构性优势。
例如，中国将可以采用自己分散部署在上百个基地的陆基空军力量，攻击敌人的海军目标。美国海军情报处预测中国海军航空部队的攻击机数量将从2009年的145架，上升到2020年的348架。美国部署在西太平洋地区的陆基空军力量只在几个少数基地活动，而来自中国的导弹袭击将会令这些空军基地变得十分脆弱。由于冷战时期的中程核导弹削减条约，使得美国不能发展以战区为目标的，在射程上足以威胁中国境内基地的地对地导弹。上述主力作战舰艇数量的比较，同样没有包含中国陆基反舰巡航导弹，这些导弹可以从机动的发射车上发射。而且，美国海军情报处的数据中还没算上中国海岸巡逻艇的数量，这些导弹艇也装备有反舰巡航导弹。
空海一体战概念起初是为了提高海军和空军人员的协作和规划。这一概念所阐述的是有关于兵种之间在作战中产生行动默契。这种行动配合默契的最好的范例就是去年发生的利比亚战争，当时美国海军的巡航导弹摧毁了利比亚政府军的防空系统，为北约空军自由地在利比亚上空执行作战任务清除了障碍。
不过，空海一体战仍旧面临着众多挑战，因为拥有“主场优势”的大陆性军事力量得益于隐蔽、分散部署的固定发射井型和机动型导弹力量，所以具有巨大的优势。此外，美国在与中国这样的对手交战时还要面对严重的“边际成本”问题。按照中国的生产成本计算，美国海军一艘主力作战舰艇在建造过程中所耗费的资金，可以用来生产数百枚甚至上千枚反舰导弹。
由于这些结构性缺陷的存在，空海一体战要想获得胜利，将不能依赖于想办法躲避敌人的导弹，而是打击位于敌方境内纵深地带的指挥中心、通信网络、侦察系统以及基地网络中心，这样才能阻止前沿作战部队发射大量导弹。这种打击将意味着攻击对手的天基系统、计算机网络和基础设施，这会牵连到更广泛的经济态势和社会稳定。一些专家对空海一体战持批评态度，主要原因是这种作战方式让结束一场冲突变得更加困难，而且会让冲突升级为全面战争——例如太空领域和网络战领域，这两方面对美国而言尤其脆弱。
资料图：二炮东风-11型战术地地导弹起竖。
美国将无法在一场亚太武力竞赛中战胜中国，而且华盛顿目前也没有计划要这么做。中国已经拥有了惊人的科技和工程能力，相反美国的决策者们需要发现持久的战略优势，而不需要维持武器在性能或数量上的领先。罗伯特·哈蒂克认为，地缘优势可能就是这种持久的战略优势之一。在一场冲突中，从日本冲绳到台湾岛，再到菲律宾的这条第一岛链，将成为封锁中国海军的屏障，并且能让美国和盟友部署更多的监控设施和导弹。中国可能会把这些带有战备性质的举动看作是一种挑衅，不过从美国亚太盟友的角度来看，这些举动将扰乱中国的军事计划。
第二，美国及其盟友在作战规划和执行复杂的军事行动方面有着更丰富的经验，因为这些军事行动需要多国军队间的配合。由于在亚太地区拥有长期建立的盟友和伙伴网络，美军指挥官和友军的指挥人员在共同执行军事行动方面积累了几十年的经验。这也是空海一体战利用和扩大美国地区盟友优势的重要方面。
美国在亚太地区拥有的最强大的优势就是盟友网络本身，华盛顿众多的盟国(签有安保条约的国家)和伙伴国家将会为美军及友军的决策者提供更多的选择。美国军事力量在亚太地区如果能够部署得更加分散，在临时或轮转基地不断调整兵力，那么中国利用现有军事力量获得优势将变得更加困难。为了获得军事优势，中国将不得不攻击更多的国家，并将这些国家卷入战争且把他们推向美国一方。对于北京而言，这一前景无疑会阻止战争冲突的爆发。
美国的外交政策是在亚太地区打造更大的盟友网络，这样一来就会起到更强的威慑效应，每个成员国所面临的危险也会大大降低。美国与澳大利亚、新加坡和菲律宾商谈建立新的轮转基地，就是美国执行这一策略的有利证据。不过，由于中国崛起带来的挑战，美国需要在亚太外交上获得更多的成功。
然而，如今美国军方的决策者在西太平洋面临着不太顺利的苗头。印度《商业标准报》的文章称，美国认为印度具有在新亚洲战略下成为美国“最关键伙伴”的潜力，但是这一战略明显是一种遏制中国的策略。许多印度专家给华盛顿的过度期望泼了一盆凉水。他们认为，没有任何一个亚洲国家(包括印度)会冒着惹恼中国的风险投入美国的怀抱。边境土地问题的确是印度与中国涉及的主要纠纷，尽管华盛顿可以向印度提供武器(轻型榴弹炮和重型运输机已在订购之中)，但若中印在拉达克和藏南地区爆发战争，美国能做的事情非常少，印度只能依靠自己。
因此，《商业标准报》的文章认为，印度可以通过各种方式与美国合作，但不要拿与中国的关系作为代价。即使是那些与中国存有领土纠纷的东南亚国家，他们在与华盛顿交流时仍要回头看看中国，因为中国已经取代了美国成为他们最大的贸易伙伴。
所以，罗伯特·哈蒂克在文章中称，亚太地区的盟友网络是中国无法迅速抵消的优势。从这个意义上说，解决美军在西太平洋面临军事挑战的“钥匙”，将取决于美国是否能在亚洲获得更多的外交成功，这样美国的亚洲盟友网络才会有更强大的火力。
June 13, the United States and India held the third round of strategic dialogue in Washington. But India is clearly on the expense of Sino-Indian relations, joined the United States to contain China's list of lines emerged in the cautious attitude.
Recently, the U.S. foreign policy and India, "Business Standard" the author expressed doubts about the new strategy of the U.S. containment of China in the Asia Pacific. "Foreign Policy" magazine article even said that the U.S. conflict with China is simply no chance for ships-to-ship duel.
"New Asia Strategy" is just the same old tune
Magazine editor Robert Ha Dike, "small wars" in the "Foreign Policy" magazine, wrote in the speech of the Shangri-La Dialogue, U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta tried to make his audience believe that the United States in the Asia-Pacific region to implement force rebalancing "strategy - the past, this strategy is known as a" strategic shift ". Panetta's speech can be seen, the United States is serious, and the future expansion of military forces in the Asia-Pacific region. Panetta announced that the 2020 U.S. Navy 60% of military power will be deployed to the Pacific region. He also openly talk about the concept of a controversial Air Sea Battle, "Panetta deny this to the Asia-Pacific surge and a new battle plan is a threat to China's.
Data Chart: People's Liberation Army HQ-9 missile overbearing.
U.S. Navy Intelligence Service forecast, the Chinese navy in this decade, the expansion of substantive change, especially when the PLA Navy's submarine force leap. Panetta about the increase in military forces, such as Air Sea Battle, such a concept is indeed necessary, but not enough to tilt the military balance in Asia-Pacific region to respond effectively.
Panetta said in his speech, "At present, 50 percent of the U.S. Navy's military forces on the Pacific, and the remaining 50 percent on the Atlantic, this assertion is not accurate. According to the U.S. Department of Defense Web site, the U.S. Navy 186 major conventional warships (including aircraft carriers, cruisers, guided missile destroyers, amphibious ships, attack submarines and cruise missile submarines), of which 101 (or 54%) have been deployed to Pacific. The Navy's newest 30-year shipbuilding plan, 2020, the number of main combat ships is likely to remain at 181, 60% means that in 2020 109 main warships deployed in the Asia-Pacific, and then compared with today , the number of warships to an increase of only 8.
On the other hand, the Naval Intelligence Office predicted that the number of the main force of the Chinese Navy warships in 2020 from 86 in 2009 rose to 106. Of which 72 are likely to attack submarine, compared to "60% of the warships deployed to the Asia-Pacific" scenario, to 2020 the number of submarines of the U.S. Navy deployed in the Pacific 29. In the 20 years after 2020, the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding plans and no signs of increased quantity of the main combat ships. China's long-term future ship construction program is not yet known, however, the Chinese defense spending is increasing at a speed of 11.8 percent a year.
Data Figure: Chinese DF-31 strategic missile warhead.
Chinese missile advantage can not be ignored
Of course, only count the number of the fighting ships does not tell the whole story. The key is these ships will be given to what kind of task, and they will fight under what conditions. A control of the South China Sea and East China Sea in the conflict broke out between the Chinese Navy and U.S. Navy, conventional land-based combat force than the U.S. has a more solid structural advantage.
For example, China will be able to use their own dispersed land-based air forces deployed in hundreds of bases, attack enemy naval targets. U.S. Navy Intelligence Service forecast of China's Naval Air Force attack aircraft number 145 from 2009, rising to 348 in 2020. U.S. land-based air forces deployed in the western Pacific only a few bases and missile attacks from China will make the Air Force Base has become very fragile. Medium-range nuclear missile reduction treaty during the Cold War, the United States can not develop to the theater for the target, enough to threaten the Chinese bases in range surface-to-surface missiles. Comparison of the quantity of the above the main combat vessels, the same does not include land-based anti-ship cruise missiles, these missiles can be fired from mobile launch vehicles. Moreover, the data of the Naval Intelligence Division not count the number of Chinese coastal patrol boats, missile boats are also equipped with anti-ship cruise missiles.
Air Sea Battle, the concept was originally designed to improve the coordination and planning of the Navy and Air Force personnel. The concept set forth in the action tacit understanding about the arms in combat. Libyan war, tacit understanding among the best examples of such action occurred last year when the U.S. Navy cruise missiles to destroy the Libyan government forces air defense system, NATO air forces in Libya over a combat mission to clear the obstacle.
However, Air Sea Battle, still faces many challenges, because the "home advantage" continental military power thanks to hidden, dispersed deployment of fixed silo-type and mobile missile force, and therefore have a huge advantage. In addition, the United States in the war with China so that opponents will have to face the serious problem of "marginal cost". Calculated in accordance with China's production costs, the funds spent by the U.S. Navy a main combat ships in the construction process can be used to produce several hundred or even thousands of anti-ship missiles.
Due to the existence of these structural defects, Air Sea Battle, in order to win, dependent on the will not be able to think of ways to evade the enemy's missiles, but down in enemy territory deep inside the command center, communication networks, reconnaissance systems, as well as the base network center, so as to prevent the forefront of combat troops to launch a large number of missiles. Such an attack would mean to attack the opponent's space-based systems, computer networks and infrastructure, which will be linked to the broader economic situation and social stability. Some experts on the Air Sea Battle, critics, mainly because this mode of combat so that the end of a conflict more difficult, but also make the escalation of the conflict for the full-scale war - for example, in space and the field of network warfare, both of which the United States This is particularly fragile.
Data Figure: Second Artillery Corps, DF-11 tactical ground-to-ground missiles from the vertical.
Is not smooth win over India
The United States will not be able to overcome an Asia-Pacific force competition in China, and Washington has no plans to do so. China already has a staggering technology and engineering capabilities to the contrary, U.S. policy makers need to find a lasting strategic advantage, without the need to maintain the weapons in the performance or the number of leading. Robert Ha Dike, geographic advantages is this one of the lasting strategic advantage. In a conflict, from Okinawa, Japan to the island of Taiwan to the Philippines, the first island chain, will become a barrier to block the Chinese navy, and allow the United States and its allies to deploy more monitoring facilities and missiles. China will move with the combat readiness nature may be seen as a provocation, but from the point of view of the U.S. Asia-Pacific allies, these moves will disrupt China's military plans.
Second, the United States and its allies have more experience in operational planning and execution of complex military operations, because the co-ordination among these military operations need to multinational forces. Accumulated decades of experience in the Asia-Pacific region has a long-established allies and partners network, the command staff of the commander of U.S. forces and friendly forces in military operations together. This is also the Air Sea Battle, use and expand the important aspect of the advantages of the U.S. allies in the region.
Ally the network itself, Washington, a large number of allies of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region has the most powerful advantages (signed security treaty countries) and partner countries will be U.S. and allied decision-makers to offer more choices. U.S. military forces in the Asia-Pacific region capable of deploying a more decentralized, temporary or rotary base to constantly adjust the force, then the use of existing military forces to gain an advantage will become more difficult. In order to obtain military superiority, China will have to attack more countries, and countries involved in the war and put them into the U.S. side. For Beijing, this prospect will undoubtedly prevent the outbreak of the war conflict.
U.S. foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific region to create a greater network of allies, so that it will play a greater deterrent effect, the risks faced by each Member State will be greatly reduced. The United States and Australia, Singapore and the Philippines to discuss the establishment of the new rotary base is favorable evidence of the implementation of this strategy. However, due to the rise of China to the challenges, the United States in the Asia-Pacific diplomatic gain more success.
Today, however, the U.S. military decision-makers in the Western Pacific is facing less smoothly signs. India's Business Standard, "the article said, the United States that India has become the most critical partner" potential in the new Asia strategy, but this strategy is clearly a strategy to contain China. Many Indian experts to Washington over expectations and poured cold water. In their view, not any Asian countries (including India) into the United States embrace risk to annoy China. Border land issue is indeed involved in disputes of India and China, although Washington can provide weapons to India (light howitzers and heavy transport aircraft already on order), but China and India in Ladakh and southern Tibet and the outbreak of war, the United States can do very little in India rely on their own.
Therefore, the Business Standard article, India, by all means cooperating with the U.S., but do not take the relationship with China as the price. Even if there are territorial disputes with China, Southeast Asian countries, they still have to look back to China in exchange with Washington, China has overtaken the U.S. as their largest trading partner.
So, Robert Ha Dike in the article said that the allies network in the Asia-Pacific region is China can not quickly offset by the advantages. In this sense, to solve military challenges facing the U.S. military in the Western Pacific "key" will depend on whether the United States diplomatic success in Asia, so Asian allies network in the United States will have more firepower.
拉拢印度并不顺利
中国导弹优势不可忽视
