by Dick Cheney
Asia is critically important, as we will discuss shortly, but America is a superpower, and our security depends upon an ability to focus on more than one geopolitical region at a time. A decision to “pivot” away from the Middle East entails significant risk, and one would assume such a major shift must have some strategic analysis behind it. When pressed for the strategic underpinning for the “pivot,” the Pentagon official finally said, “Mr. Vice President, it’s all about budgets.” President Obama was pretending the war on terror was over so that he wouldn’t have to continue to allocate significant military resources to the Middle East. He was pretending the world had become safer and more stable so that he wouldn’t have to fund a force sized to fight and win two wars simultaneously.
The president’s new strategic guidance was inadequate. It neither contemplated nor provided for the number or nature of the threats we face. Its purpose, as the Obama political appointee made clear, was to justify budget cuts.
Those cuts are not only causing a serious deficit in readiness and force structure, they are also resulting in the potential loss of preeminence for the United States military in key areas. “The nation faces unprecedented technology challenges,” Representative Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has said, “with enemies and potential competitors working every day to exploit vulnerabilities in our capabilities.” They are focused, he said, on developing technologies that will offset America’s military strength. While much of the information about efforts under way in this area is classified, Chairman Thornberry quoted a senior Defense Department official describing the magnitude of the threat:
We are at risk, and the situation is getting worse. . . . We came out of the Cold War with a very dominant military . . . [and] people have had quite a bit of time to . . . do things about how to defeat that force. And what I am seeing in foreign modernizations . . . is a suite of capabilities that are intended clearly . . . to defeat the American way of doing power projection, American way of warfare . . . and, without saying too much about this, the Chinese, in particular—and, again, to a lesser extent, the Russians—are going beyond what we have done. They are making advances beyond what we currently have fielded.
For the last seventy years, the United States has had no peers in terms of the power of our military. The advent of cyberwarfare and the technological advances being made by our adversaries threaten to change that. In an appearance on Fox News Sunday on January 11, 2015, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey described the shift. “In every domain, we generally enjoy a significant military advantage,” Dempsey said, “but we have peer competitors in cyber. . . . We don’t have an advantage. It’s a level playing field. And that makes this chairman very uncomfortable.”
The United States also risks losing the preeminence of its nuclear arsenal. “Since the start of the atomic age,” according to former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security Robert Joseph, “from Harry Truman to George W. Bush, the United States has sought to maintain, in the words of John F. Kennedy, a nuclear-weapons capability ‘second to none.’ ” As Joseph went on to say, they have all understood “that it was vital for the United States not to concede nuclear pre-eminence to any country.” During the Cold War, this meant ensuring that America’s arsenal was of sufficient size and capability to deter the Soviet nuclear threat. Today, as the United States faces the reality of multiple adversaries armed with nuclear weapons, maintaining America’s nuclear superiority is more important than ever, but President Obama has abandoned this goal.
In his first months in office President Obama proclaimed his commitment to eliminating all nuclear weapons. The first step, he explained, was to cut America’s own arsenal. In pursuit of this goal, President Obama signed the New START Treaty with the Russians. As former undersecretary of defense ambassador Eric Edelman noted in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, New START has imposed significant limits on American capabilities while requiring no drawdowns in Russia’s nuclear force structure. President Obama agreed, for example, to limit the number of deployed missile launchers to 700 for each side, despite the fact that the Department of Defense and Department of Energy found that a force of 900 launchers was necessary to maintain America’s deterrence capability. In addition, Russia was already below 700 prior to the treaty, so this limitation would require cuts only from the United States.
New START also limits our missile defense capabilities. In particular, Article V prohibits converting existing intercontinental (ICBM) or submarine-based (SLBM) launchers for the placement of missile defense interceptors. In what is an all-too-familiar pattern, the Obama administration first claimed the treaty would include no such limitations. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher was asked in a briefing on March 29, 2010, about Russian claims that the treaty included missile defense limitations. “There is no limit or constraint on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems,” Tauscher replied, “no way, no how.” When the language in the treaty became public, and the missile defense limitations could not be denied, the administration changed its rhetoric. As former undersecretary of state Bob Joseph pointed out, “No way, no how” became “no meaningful limitations” and “no constraints on current and planned” programs. Limiting America’s ability to defend itself from nuclear attack in a world in which we face threats not just from Russia, but also from a nuclear-armed North Korea, a nuclear-armed China, and potentially a nuclear-armed Iran, is reckless. Such a concession was so sure to increase opposition to the treaty that the administration had no desire to be candid about it with the American people.
The same week that President Obama signed the New START Treaty, his administration also issued a new nuclear policy for the nation. The 2010 “Nuclear Posture Review” imposes additional restraints on America’s ability to maintain and modernize its nuclear forces. Despite the fact that China and Russia are aggressively pursuing expanded arsenals and improved technology, President Obama has prohibited the United States from developing any new nuclear warheads or any new components for existing warheads. He has also banned efforts that would lead to “new military missions or provide new military capabilities” for our nuclear arsenal. Our adversaries want to deny us nuclear superiority. President Obama’s policies are making their task easier.
The president has continued to seek even further nuclear arms reductions. Speaking at the Brandenburg Gate in June 2013, he explained that New START was just the beginning. America could cut its deployed nuclear arsenal by one-third, he announced. “And, I intend,” he said, “to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.” At the time that the president made this announcement, his administration had confirmed Russia was violating its existing arms reduction obligations under the INF Treaty. Putting America’s nuclear arsenal at the mercy of another arms control treaty with the Russians when they weren’t living up to existing obligations is counterintuitive, to say the least.
The INF Treaty, signed in 1987 by President Reagan and Soviet premier Gorbachev, prohibits, among other things, testing missiles with a range between 500 and 5,000 kilometers. The Russians have been doing precisely that. As a result, because the United States is abiding by its obligations under the treaty, we are the only nation in the world today prohibited from testing intermediate-range missiles. Efforts to broaden membership in the treaty, including during the Bush administration, were unsuccessful. Other countries did not see it to be in their interest to limit their capabilities.
The president’s ongoing efforts to reduce our nuclear arsenal indicate that he views it as a relic of the Cold War. He seems not to recognize that in today’s world, its deterrent effect is more crucial than ever. If our arsenal is degraded, outdated, or unreliable, our ability to prevent the hostile actions of others is significantly diminished.
One example of the impact of our nuclear deterrence occurred during the 1991 Gulf Wa
r. Though the Iraqis had large stocks of chemical and biological weapons, they did not use them. All of the Scud missiles they fired at Israel and Saudi Arabia were armed with conventional warheads. A number of high-ranking U.S. officials, including President George H. W. Bush, had warned Saddam Hussein in strong terms against launching a chemical or biological attack. “You and your country will pay a terrible price if you order unconscionable acts of this sort,” President Bush wrote in a letter to Saddam. After the war, the Iraqis explained that, although they had armed a number of missiles and bombs with their WMD, they didn’t launch them because they feared a nuclear response from America, based largely on warnings like the one issued by President Bush.
America’s nuclear weapons are also important for the assurances they enable us to provide other nations. For decades the United States has extended the protection of its “nuclear umbrella” to allies. These assurances have contributed significantly to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Countries need not develop their own nuclear arsenals if they can rely on ours. Cutting the size of America’s arsenal and preventing its modernization significantly reduce the value and credibility of the American nuclear umbrella. This will undoubtedly lead more nations to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
We live in a world in which America’s most significant adversaries are expanding the size and capabilities of their nuclear arsenals, in which terrorist groups are gathering strength, territory, resources, and seeking nuclear weapons, in which the Iranians are poised to become a nuclear weapons state, and in which the North Koreans are increasing their arsenal and capabilities. We cannot afford to let wishful thinking blind us to the reality that now more than ever, America must maintain its nuclear preeminence.
Time and again throughout our history, we have cut our military too deeply in the aftermath of wars, only to have to rearm when enemies threaten. Barack Obama is the only president in American history—perhaps the only world leader in all of history—to slash defense spending in the midst of a war.
CHINA
THE ARRAY OF THREATS facing America today is vast, from the rise of ISIS to the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran to Russian aggression against Ukraine and threats against the Baltics. None, however, is greater than the challenge posed by China. Embarked upon a decades-long effort to defeat the United States militarily and economically, China is pursuing this objective with determination and strategic commitment. Aiming to surpass the United States economically and militarily, the Chinese are moving along multiple fronts simultaneously, building up their conventional, nuclear, and technological weapons capabilities.
During a 2011 trip through the Pacific, President Obama delivered a speech to the Australian parliament in which he announced a broad shift in American policy, a “pivot to Asia,” as it became known. He emphasized America’s strength and determination to defend its interests and allies in Asia, and said that he had directed his national security team “to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.” He did not directly say so, but he was widely understood to signal America’s intention to maintain its preeminent status against the Chinese challenge.
Particularly on the military front, however, there was a decided lack of follow-through. On March 4, 2014, the assistant secretary of defense for acquisition, Katrina McFarland, spoke the blunt truth. Cuts in the defense budget meant the pivot wouldn’t happen. “Right now,” she said, “the pivot is being looked at again, because candidly, it can’t happen.” A few hours later, she issued a typical Washington “clarification,” explaining that what she meant was “The rebalance to Asia can and will continue.” Having announced that we would increase our presence significantly and provide protection for our allies in the region while discouraging China’s aggressive moves, the United States failed to deliver. It was a policy outcome that can only have emboldened China.
While we’ve been undertaking massive cuts, China has been building the military forces necessary to become a global power. Their defense spending increased more than 12 percent between 2013 and 2014, and with the exception of 2010, has increased every year since 1989 by double digits. These are only the publicly known figures. Beijing routinely omits major defense-related expenditures from its announced numbers, so the expansion has likely been significantly greater. Chinese military capacity is advancing in every sector as a result of these expenditures.
In its annual report to Congress for 2014, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission described some of China’s accomplishments in the missile sector, an area of obvious concern for U.S. security:
China maintains the largest and most lethal short-range ballistic missile force in the world; fielded the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile in 2010; deployed its military’s first long-range, air-launched land-attack cruise missile in 2012; and will widely deploy its military’s first indigenous advanced long-range submarine-launched anti-ship missile in the next few years, if it has not already. In 2014, China conducted its first test of a new hypersonic missile vehicle, which can conduct kinetic strikes anywhere in the world within minutes to hours, and performed its second flight test of a new road-mobile intercontinental missile that will be able to strike the entire continental United States and could carry up to ten independently maneuverable warheads.
Since the report was submitted, China has conducted three more tests of its hypersonic missile. According to the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, China has also deployed its new YJ-18 supersonic antiship cruise missile on warships and submarines, posing “a major threat to U.S. and allied vessels.”
While investing in a vastly expanded missile capability, China is also building a navy capable of projecting Chinese power regionally and globally. In January 2014, the first Chinese aircraft carrier was deployed on a long-term training mission, and the Chinese navy conducted its first combat deployment in the Indian Ocean. If current trends continue, according to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, by 2020 the Chinese could have more than 350 submarines and missile-equipped surface ships in the Asia-Pacific. By contrast, the U.S. Navy projects that it will have 67 submarines and surface ships “stationed in or forward deployed to” the Asia-Pacific by 2020.
Ignoring international law, the Chinese have claimed sovereignty over most of the South China Sea and are embarked upon a massive land reclamation and construction program to bolster these claims. They have built nearly two thousand acres of artificial islands on top of submerged reef, and they have attempted to restrict U.S. military flights over the islands. Satellite imagery confirms they are building airstrips and other military facilities on the reclaimed land.
China is also making strides in its ability to conduct warfare in space and disable American satellites. The Chinese are building their own drone force, jamming communications in U.S. drone flights, and developing a range of weapons systems aimed at eliminating America’s military advantage. These include rocket-propelled sea mines and tactical high-energy laser weapons.
Their efforts in many of these areas are a result of a decades-long commitment to the development of technologies that exploit particular areas of American weakness. Some of these projects sound like the stuff of science fiction, but many of them are part of a larger effort known as shashoujian, or “Assassin’s Mace,” a term derived from an ancient Chinese folktale. In the story, a weaker hero triumphs over a mighty adversary with a macelike weapon hidden in his sleeve. Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute, explains the term in the military context: “Assassin’s Mace refers to a set of asymmetric weapons that allows an inferior enemy to defeat a seemingly superior adversary by striking at an enemy’s weakest point.” China has been embarked upon an effort to develop Assassin’s Mace weapons for use against the United States for the better part of twenty years.
One central element of this effort is China’s cyberwar against the United States. This has included massive targeting of both U.S. gover
nment and industry. In May 2013, the Washington Post reported that the Chinese had obtained designs for a number of America’s most advanced weapons systems, and were undertaking aggressive efforts to steal intellectual property from the U.S. private sector. In May 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management announced that someone had hacked into their systems stealing personnel and security clearance information on U.S. government employees. Twenty-two million people may have been affected. The Chinese government, it is widely thought, is to blame. According to former director of the CIA and NSA General Michael Hayden, “The Chinese have pretty much had a freehand in American databases for the better part of a decade and the attacks fit their policy, their needs, their tactics and their tools.”
In addition to cyberespionage, the Chinese have focused on developing electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons that could take down our power grid, destroy communications networks, and render military command-and-control centers inoperable. Until relatively recently, launching an EMP attack would require exploding a nuclear device several hundred miles above the wide area to be affected. The method the Chinese are focusing on achieves the same end but with none of the complications of a nuclear explosion—and it can be targeted. In his book, The Hundred-Year Marathon, Pillsbury points out that the Chinese see America’s ever-increasing dependence on electronic technology as putting us particularly at risk. According to an official newspaper of the People’s Liberation Army, “The United States is more vulnerable to attacks than any other country in the world.”
