Stephen Elliott

In an editorial with the Taipei Times, Richard D. Fisher, who is a Senior Fellow on Asian Military Affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center and also on the advisory board at Global Taiwan Institute discusses the possibility that deterrence needed to prevent an attack by Beijing on Taiwan is fading. Fisher points to several troubling developments, with the increased show of force by navies from several nations and even a reaffirmation for a fifth time on May 20th by U.S. President Joe Biden that America would defend Taiwan not enough to prompt Beijing to be less aggressive in the region. He also notes that the recent remarks by China's Defense Minister Dong Jun at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore earlier in June were more threats than an acknowledgement that China was facing greater deterrence. Perhaps it is not that deterrence is failing, but that it was wrong to believe that deterrence alone could help push back against Beijing's delusional belief that it has the right to take Taiwan, by force if necessary, as it had said many times. This discussion later in Fisher's commentary about the role of tactical nuclear weapons, therefore, is concerning. Already, we have seen for several years now Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioning the possibility of using nuclear weapons should NATO try to push back against Moscow's efforts in Ukraine. More on the aspect of nuclear capability as well as nuclear deterrence is discussed, which is worth reading. However, at the at the end of his remarks Fisher asserts: "Only when Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and the Iranian Mullahs understand that their invasion armies and invasion navies can be obliterated immediately will they think again about starting new wars. When they do, deterrence will stop fading and become strong again. It could be argued that is one possibility as to why the three are kicking off their summer vacation travel plans early by visiting one another. Putin just paid a visit to Kim in Pyongyang before going to Vietnam. Invariably, the trio of dictators are trying to create strength in numbers so that it is the U.S. and others that give up challenging them, rather than they being the ones canceling their annexation plans. Until, however, there is more in the "Arsenal of Democracy" than deterrence via an escalation in military equipment and threats, we should expect Messrs. Xi, Putin and Kim will continue to find ways to expand their arsenals. As autocrats in command of faltering or even long-troubled economies, they have little else with which to fight back against the U.S. and its allies. At the same time, carrots can no longer be provided to Beijing, Moscow or even Pyongyang. They have used them often to strengthen their autocratic positions at home and will increasingly use them against us abroad. Rather, other tools will be needed to fix the problem.

12

19 Comments

Wargaming scenarios is a vital exercise for strategic planning, not just in military and government circles. Check out a KSG wargame simulation report of a hedge fund facing a China-Taiwan invasion scenario with US intervention. #wargame #finance #strategy #China #Taiwan

14

Beyond the specific context of the U.S. Senate, the term "nuclear option" has come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used as a last resort to overcome political opposition. Considering the idiocy and childishness of Congress and the rot of the overall bureaucratistanic regime… Maybe we need an actual nuclear option. Mutual assured destruction has a way of forcing sobriety and humility. Othniel Max Daves

1

Kevin Rudd: "Deterring China from launching military action against Taiwan is the cornerstone of a U.S. and allied strategy for preserving the status quo and the wider geostrategic stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The question that arises for all of us, however, is how to also deter China’s emerging menu of measures that remain “short of war” and “short of invasion” but that share the same political objective, which is to force Taipei to capitulate." https://lnkd.in/eYUSWWbg

48

1 Comment

In a new Q&A, our Mary Glantz, Frank Aum, Carla Freeman and Andrew Scobell explain what’s behind Russia and North Korea’s deepening cooperation, what it means for China and how it impacts U.S. interests:

1

Japan is doubling defense spending (though it still has to figure out what to do about yen depreciation) and acquiring long-range missiles and other hardware. But it's paying (as it always has) too little attention to the people who serve in the JSDF, and seems surprised that not enough people want to join JSDF. It missed recruitment targets by 50% last year. Yes, 50%. This is a long-running disaster and Japan needs to fix it -- and fast. Japan's leaders appear to have no idea what to do. #japan #jsdf #prc #pla #asiandefense #japanselfdefenseforce #japanministryofdefense

96

8 Comments

In my latest column, I discuss the intensifying conflict in the Middle East and suggest that Iran's support for HAMAS and its recent missile attack on Israel are part of its campaign to derail the peace negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. https://lnkd.in/ePaCBNYH

1

Professor Robert Kahn has published, "Critical Race Theory Bans and Canceling Russia: Where are Holmes and Brandeis Now?" Read it on SSRN at https://lnkd.in/g_6_dfps. Abstract: Free speech has fallen on hard times, as shown by critical race theory bans, and the informal censorship of Russian cultural figures, such as opera singer Anna Netrebko, in the wake of the Ukraine War. One can fairly ask: Where are Justice Holmes and Brandeis now? During the 1910s and 1920s, the two justices laid out a vision of free speech that supposedly informs what we do today. But is this the case? If critical race theory is punishable as communism, why did Justice Holmes in Gitlow v. New York accept “proletarian dictatorship” as a possible outcome? If supporters of the Ukraine war view every assertion of Russian culture as support for Putin, how does this square with the care Justice Holmes took to distinguish the defendants in Abrams v. United States as pro-Bolshevik but not pro-German? Returning to the Holmes Brandeis canon will invigorate public life and help reduce cancel culture. #ustlawmn #freedomofspeech #freespeech #firstamendment #criticalracetheory #statutoryinterpretation #communism #ukrainewar

13

1 Comment

The China, Japan, ROK joint statement at the link: https://lnkd.in/eGu2RBuA I can make the case that "political settlement" of the Korea peninsula issue can be interpreted as support for peaceful unification in accordance with paragraph 60 of the 1953 Armistice that call on nations to support the political settlement of the "Korea question." The Korea questions refers to the unnatural division of the peninsula. "35. We reaffirmed that maintaining peace, stability and prosperity on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia serves our common interest and is our common responsibility. We reiterated positions on regional peace and stability, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the abductions issue, respectively. We agree to continue to make positive efforts for the political settlement of the Korean Peninsula issue."

5

1 Comment

An excellent read by Mike Mochizuki on the #IndoPacific's dangerous dynamics. Key take homes: 1. "the #US and its allies and partners must invest much more in diplomacy with #China, in addition to bolstering military deterrence." 2. "the United States and key allies like #Japan should make a sustained effort to establish a durable crisis prevention and management dialogue with China involving each nation’s foreign policy and security agencies" Open societies like the US allow for this open dialogue about US China relations. China could help itself tremendously by allowing for the continuum of views that DO exist in China about the problems with the US and at home with their own government and #Xijinping instead of the constant flow of anti-US/ crisis propaganda https://lnkd.in/gPCh5mvC

5

“I spoke to 10 veterans of the bureau, including six former assistant secretaries who led it. While no single ingredient seems to explain its relative success, a few ingredients together might: INR analysts are true experts. They are heavily recruited from PhD programs and even professorships, and have been on their subject matter (a set of countries, or a thematic specialty like trade flows or terrorism) for an average of 14 years. CIA analysts typically switch assignments every two to three years. INR’s small size means that analyses are written by individuals, not by committee, and analysts have fewer editors and managers separating them from the policymakers they’re advising. That means less groupthink, and clearer individual perspectives. INR staff work alongside State Department policymakers, meaning they get regular feedback on what kind of information is most useful to them. Intelligence analysis is a notoriously difficult craft.” Reading:

3

1 Comment

This is very interesting, given the increased cooperation on high-stakes stuff between the Yanks and the Koreans, both at bilateral and trilateral levels. https://lnkd.in/gGFNjWT4

1

Coming US Tariffs in Response to China’s “Cheating” and “Overcapacity” Will Lead to Retaliation, Impacting Businesses and Investors Globally China will “take all necessary measures” to defend itself if the U.S. imposes new tariffs on its exports. They will wait and see what the tariffs cover and how they are rolled out. Then they will act. Agriculture will most likely be hit. Retaliation could also take the form of non-tariff barriers such as slow-rolling regulatory approvals for US companies. PRC could also retaliate with more export bans on certain critical materials, or block Chinese companies using semiconductors from Intel or other American companies. My analysis for CNBC with Dan Murphy and Sam Vadas CNBC International APAC Advisors (Singapore) McLarty Associates

24

4 Comments

Ashley J. Tellis, Foreign Affairs [excerpt]: The available evidence about China’s #nuclear transformation suggests that it has four specific #military objectives. First, Beijing seeks to increase its force survivability. The numerical enlargement of China’s warhead inventory and the diversification of its delivery systems, including the creation of a full-fledged nuclear triad, are driven by the objective of increasing the survivable fraction of the Chinese nuclear deterrent—that is, the number of Chinese weapons that would survive even a comprehensive first strike launched by the United States. ... In an era of rising competition, Beijing’s desire to prevent Washington from ever concluding that it could “win” a nuclear war by executing “splendid first strikes”—those that could successfully neutralize China’s nuclear reserves—has taken on a new urgency. China has therefore sought to concurrently increase the number of nuclear warheads it deploys, diversify their modes of deployment and delivery, and alter its force posture through increased alert rates that would permit it to inflict immense damage on American cities and other targets, even after suffering a U.S. first strike. These transformations are not intended to support fighting a nuclear war—at least not yet—but to bolster strategic deterrence so that China’s emerging ability to inflict widespread “unacceptable” damage on U.S. targets would prevent Washington from ever contemplating nuclear attacks on China to begin with. Second, Beijing seeks to increase its retaliatory effectiveness. Chinese leaders and military planners understand all too well that successful nuclear deterrence against the United States ultimately requires that China be able to hold at risk a variety of highly valued U.S. assets ... At the moment, U.S. national missile defenses are thin and would likely be ineffective against the threats posed by the offensive forces of a major nuclear power such as China. But as U.S.-Chinese competition evolves, Beijing cannot count on U.S. strategic defenses remaining underdeveloped in ways that give its offensive nuclear operations a free ride. Accordingly, China is investing heavily in increasing the ability of its nuclear weapons to penetrate U.S. defenses, even if those defenses become more sophisticated in the years ahead. Whether it is through the deployment of ever more sophisticated penetration aids (such as decoys, jammers, and maneuvering reentry vehicles) or the development of unconventional delivery platforms (such as hypersonic glide vehicles or fractional orbital bombardment systems), it aims to ensure that it can perpetually defeat any U.S. strategic defenses. China wants the capacity to respond symmetrically to U.S. nuclear attacks. Third, Beijing seeks to increase its escalation competitiveness. Given the crises China anticipates, it wants the ability to match the United States at every level of nuclear use. ... #news #geopolitics

2

On today's The Lawfare Institute podcast, I discuss my recent report examining Chinese defense experts' views of the challenges Beijing faces in developing and fielding AI-enabled military systems. You can listen to it here: https://lnkd.in/gv-gmYrV

18

Is it too early to say, "told you so Reuters and BBC News?" I believe that the Israel's IDF deserves an apology from all news media loudly and dishonestly broadcasting Hamas propaganda with little or no context. I simply point out Reuters and the BBC because I used to recommend them to others. I know longer read either and may, never again. I guess that the United Nations, after months of honest criticism, has reconsidered much of their previous behavior. Don't get me wrong, no civilian casualties are the optimum. This is not possible on any level in the environment that the IDF operating in, within Gaza. While like most, I disagreed with too much use of the 2,000 lb. bombs/ bunker busters, by all global standards, the majority of IDF operations have been well-within the bounds of international law. Bunker busters are the perfect, air delivered weapon for adversaries buried stories underground in tunnels. This combined with Hamas' insistence on keeping innocent Palestinians in place as human shields and Bibi's intent to prosecute this war that helps his far right administration's base, have been the perfect storm of tragedy in Gaza. On the other hand, Putin's desperation before the GOP cut off support to Ukraine and that drove him to seek diversions from his disaster in Ukraine, like Israel, central Africa, Serbia and Armenia, is partly to blame as well. Iran, the "hitman" for Putin in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, did all possible to enable Hamas to butcher Israelis on Oct. 7th. They still do.

6

1 Comment

This is bound to be a mixed bag. To start with the good - reviewing and retooling regulations to advance the government development, use and diffusion of AI tech is absolutely necessary and a fundamental positive. I've long advocated doing this not just in the DoD, but all agencies. Will this rewrite the DoD rule book? Probably not, but its still a good step. Beyond this, however, invoking the Manhattan Project for AI technology is an idea that is bold in messaging, but likely to be run-of-mill in implementation. The original Manhattan Project had a clear war time incentive and obvious bar for success - a bomb that works. In contrast, AI is a general-purpose technology that can take many forms, achieve many outcomes, and be applied to countless use cases. Given the immensity of AI, and the sleepy incentives of peacetime, it’s hard to imagine how any AI Manhattan Project could match the clear, singular drive of the original. Its also hard to imagine how this Project doesn't mirror the current state of U.S. research. The U.S. government has already invested heavily in a diversity of fundamental AI research and AI moonshots to remain competitive. Will rebranding this research as a ‘Manhattan Project’ change much? In all likelihood – no. https://lnkd.in/eKjUsCh8

6