Eric Heginbotham: Few if any in the United States want to contemplate the possibility of military conflict with China, and it appears that the same is true in Beijing. But it is nevertheless important to understand the evolving balance of power, which will influence the behavior of all regional actors individually and the stability of the international system more generally. Specific features of the military balance will also help us understand what measures might either enhance or undermine stability.

While much has been written on Chinese military modernization, there has been relatively little structured analysis. Most of the analysis published to date consists of “bean counts,” comparing system numbers, or reports on individual new Chinese weapons systems. 

The Scorecards report was an effort to bring structure to the analysis of Asian military issues and fill the current gap in the literature. We sought to capture the most important dynamics that might be associated with combat between U.S. and Chinese forces in particular operational contexts – considering the relevant movement speeds, geography, numbers, quality, and attrition of U.S. and Chinese forces. 

The team employed a variety of models and metrics to evaluate the balance in ten different types of operational conflict, at four evenly spaced points in time from 1996 to 2017, and at two different distances from China.
 

KH: Do you think that the balance of military power in Asia is really shifting toward China from the U.S.? If not, how long will it take for China to be on equal footing with the U.S.?
Heginbotham: China has been making steady and relatively rapid relative gains vis-a-vis the United States. These gains are not uniform across the different military domains, and the United States has maintained its lead more comfortably and decisively in some areas than others. But the erosion of U.S. dominance has nevertheless been widespread and significant.  

In terms of aggregate capabilities, China will not be able to overtake the United States for decades, if it ever reaches such a point. If a military conflict were to take place at an equal distance from both countries, the United States would hold overwhelming advantages for the foreseeable future. But China has already acquired capabilities that would enable it to challenge the United States in areas close to China, and the risks and costs associated with potential conflicts in East Asia will likely continue to grow for U.S. forces in the years ahead.

Given Taiwan’s proximity to China, as well as its small size and lack of strategic depth, Taiwan-related contingencies would be among the most difficult for U.S. forces. In a hypothetical Taiwan scenario, the PLA would likely be able to contest air and maritime superiority at the outset of the conflict, and it might inflict losses on the United States unlike any the latter has seen in recent decades. The Chinese military could employ ballistic and cruise missiles to damage U.S. air bases and other critical facilities; it could flush submarines and sortie cruise-missile-armed bombers to hold U.S. carriers at bay; and it could employ combat aircraft -- which now includes roughly 800 fourth-generation, or modern, fighter aircraft -- to contest air superiority and launch follow-up strikes against key targets.  

To be clear, U.S. forces would almost certainly prevail in a Taiwan scenario today -- especially if a conflict became protracted. The U.S. military has tremendous residual strengths and could redeploy forces from elsewhere to make good initial losses. 

Amphibious landing operations are notoriously complex and hazardous, and in any Chinese attempt to take the island by force, its amphibious fleet would face ferocious and unforgiving attacks by U.S. submarine and air forces. Blockading Taiwan might be somewhat easier, but a blockade would, by definition, require sustained operations, and the PLA would have great difficulties supporting such efforts.  

Conflicts at greater distances from China would generally be even more difficult for China, given its limited power projection capabilities. In those cases, U.S. forces could operate from bases outside the range of most Chinese ballistic missiles, and far fewer Chinese aircraft could get themselves into the fight.  

Nevertheless, if Chinese capabilities continue to improve at their current rate and the United States does not make significant adjustments to its operational practices and procurement, the defense of Taiwan will likely become far less certain within 10-15 years. China will also likely improve its ability to project power beyond Taiwan, though the scale will remain more limited and the United States will enjoy clearer advantages as the distance from China increases.  

KH: How do you assess China’s overall capabilities to project military power to the South China Sea and conduct military operations there? Would it be possible for China to risk any intense military clash there?
Heginbotham: The Chinese military’s ability to project power toward the Spratly Islands remains limited. The Spratly Islands lie roughly 900-1,400 kilometers from China’s Hainan Island -- significantly farther than Taiwan, which is a mere 160 kilometers off the mainland. Without aerial refueling, Chinese fighter aircraft would be operating close to the limit of their range, with little fuel to spare for combat operations once there. Amphibious forces would similarly have to traverse long distances, increasing their exposure to air and submarine attacks.  

Against relatively weak local competitors, Chinese forces deployed to the South China Sea might prove adequate for a variety of tasks, but they would likely face enormous disadvantages against U.S. opposition. 

In recent months, China has undertaken large-scale land reclamation in the South China Sea and is constructing large (3,000-meter) airstrips on at least three of its new islands. The islands and the military facilities on them will enhance China’s ability to maintain an air presence during peacetime, and they will provide it with additional capabilities against potential local adversaries in the event of conflict. But Chinese facilities on the Spratly Islands would likely be highly vulnerable to attack during a conflict with U.S. forces. The mobility of modern surface-to-air missiles would be of little value on the tiny new artificial islands, and there would be few opportunities for air defense in depth, involving interlocking range rings and missile types.  

China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea, with its potential impact on territorial claims, has garnered considerable media attention, but from a strictly military perspective, improvements to the PLA’s underlying sustainment capabilities will likely be at least as important -- perhaps significantly more so. China will soon deploy its first indigenously built military transport aircraft, the Y-20, and the PLA is likely to build a tanker variant. A significant fleet of tankers that are each larger than the handful it now deploys would enable China to fly more aircraft, with greater loiter time, from more bases to areas throughout the South China Sea -- as well as into the Western Pacific. 

As far as the likelihood of conflict, China’s political leaders have every reason to avoid conflict with regional states, and even more to avoid an armed clash with the United States. However, it is possible to imagine situations in which a local incident or crisis could escalate to the use of force, especially if Chinese leaders believed that the United States would remain on the sidelines. In the context of an ongoing crisis, it might prove impossible for either China or a potential adversary to back down in the face of aroused public opinion. And the United States, with its credibility on the line, could potentially be drawn in for reasons other than its direct interests in the dispute in question. 

Accidents and miscalculations are, in my view, the most likely paths to conflict between China and the United States. And with Chinese military power growing, PLA military aircraft and ships now come into contact with those of its neighbors and the United States more frequently, increasing the risk of accidental or incidental crises or clashes.


KH: How do you assess China’s nuclear force? Some people say when China secures an adequate level of conventional military capabilities, there could be a move to strengthen its nuclear force.
Heginbotham: Chinese leaders and strategists have long believed that nuclear forces are critically important for deterring nuclear attack and blackmail, but they have also held that, beyond deterrence, nuclear weapons’ functions are very limited. China maintains a no-first-use policy, and many Western analysts describe its doctrine as one of “minimum deterrence.” Western and Chinese analysts note that Beijing has not accorded the development of a large and robust nuclear force the same priority that it has to the modernization of conventional forces. 

Nevertheless, the pace of Chinese nuclear modernization has accelerated in recent years. The PLA has deployed more weapons and improved the quality and survivability of its new systems. In large measure, nuclear modernization appears to have been driven by concerns about the ability of Chinese nuclear forces to survive a hypothetical U.S. first strike in sufficient numbers to penetrate U.S. missile defenses and retaliate. Therefore, the emphasis has been on the deployment of new classes of mobile land-based missiles, as well as improved ballistic missile submarines -- all designed to enhance survivability. 

China will probably not abandon core policies or elements of strategic thought, but it will continue to improve its nuclear capabilities. Those improvements may give it new options with regard to nuclear warfighting and could lead it, in the longer term, to reinterpret doctrine even as it continues to cling to the same lexicon and labels (for example “no first use”).  

While nuclear deterrence vis-a-vis the United States will continue to be the focus of China’s nuclear efforts, Chinese strategists are also likely to pay increasing attention to the development of nuclear capabilities in neighboring states, particularly in India and Russia. Although the number of nuclear weapons deployed globally continues to shrink with the reduction of U.S. and Russian inventories, nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence is likely to gain increased salience in Asia, where Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and North Korean capabilities are all growing.  


KH: What are the implications of Chinese military modernization and the evolving balance of power for Korea? 
Heginbotham: The shift in the balance of power over several decades has indeed been profound. In 1996, China’s defense budget was less than half the size of that of Japan, which at that time was the largest in Asia. Today, China’s budget is three times that of Japan’s, and improvements to its capabilities have been commensurate. Needless to say, Chinese military budgets and power compare even more favorably with those of other Asian states, including Korea’s, despite major improvements to ROK (Republic of Korea) capabilities in recent years.  

The Chinese leadership’s confidence in the state’s ability to achieve its regional objectives has grown in tandem with the growth in its military power. Chinese objectives and claims have not necessarily become more expansive, but Beijing’s willingness to assert its position forcefully certainly appears to have increased. Whether or not it is behaving “aggressively,” or simply more “assertively,” concern has risen throughout much of Southeast Asia. Even Malaysia, with an ostensibly “special relationship” with China, has grown increasingly wary of China’s direction. 

In Northeast Asia, Korea has cultivated its own special relationship with China, chiefly to better handle its relationship with North Korea. China’s disputes with the ROK are relatively minor and have thus far remained largely submerged. But as Chinese power grows and its behavior alters in tone if not totality, there is no guarantee that Beijing’s activities in Northeast Asia will not evolve in ways that will present new challenges to Seoul. The U.S.-ROK alliance will likely become more important to both partners in the years ahead as uncertainty mounts.  


KH: How do you think the U.S. military will try to maintain its military leadership amid the rise of the Chinese military?
Heginbotham: Barring dramatic changes in U.S. or Chinese economic fortunes, it may be impossible for the United States to maintain the kind of military dominance that it once held. Nevertheless, the United States can maintain a powerful conventional deterrent -- and more broadly, an important security role -- in Asia.  

Doing this will likely require the adoption of an integrated set of military and political measures. To some extent, the U.S. military can improve its position by adjusting procurement priorities. The United States has global strategic interests and requirements, and much of its efforts since Sept. 11, 2001, have focused on capabilities associated with counterinsurgency operations in the Middle East. Over the last several years, however, it has begun to place greater emphasis on acquiring or improving capabilities most relevant to the Asia-Pacific, including the acquisition of new types of long-range precision strike and more robust satellite systems that are resistant to, if not immune from, jamming and dazzling.  

Even more fundamental than changes to procurement will be adjustments to operational concepts and posture. There is vigorous debate in U.S. security circles about what specific changes should be made to defense strategy in Asia. In my view, the United States should adopt an active denial strategy that focuses on maintaining resiliency in the face of attack and on the ability to defeat adversary forces actively engaged in offensive operations. Survivability would derive in part from the dispersion of U.S. military assets and the repositioning of some farther from the mainland, as well as from the hardening of military facilities and modest improvements of active defenses (such as missile defense systems).  

Assuming relatively flat budgets, such adjustments could entail some loss of offensive punch at the outset of conflict and would implicitly acknowledge that all-aspects military dominance is beyond U.S. reach. But they would also highlight continuing U.S. commitment to the region and would, in the end, strengthen deterrence. One of the few areas of consensus to emerge from the large literature on deterrence theory is that potential aggressors are more likely to attack when they have a plausible path to quick success. Any increase in U.S. operational resilience -- the ability to absorb punishment and continue the fight -- should therefore have a powerful deterrent impact. 

And because the strategy would be both less “forward leaning” (offensively oriented) and more survivable, an active denial strategy would reduce the incentives for both sides to strike first in the event of crisis. In other words, it would enhance, rather than undermine, crisis stability.  

In addition to changes to procurement and operational concepts, it will be critical for the United States to deepen strategic relations with regional allies and leverage the strengths of those partner states. Indeed, without allied support and cooperation, it will be impossible to achieve the military objectives outlined above or to pursue alternative operational concepts. More broadly, a united front among regional states will maximize the chances that freedom of navigation and other core international norms will be maintained and upheld, and that potential aggression will be deterred.  

By Song Sang-ho (sshluck@heraldcorp.com)


**Eric Heginbotham

● Heginbotham, a principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for International Studies, is well known for his extensive research and expertise in East Asian security issues. Prior to joining MIT last month, he was a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation.

● He previously worked as a senior fellow of Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and taught as a visiting faculty member of Boston College’s Political Science Department. He served for 16 years in the U.S. Army Reserves and National Guard. 

● He has authored or coauthored a series of influential books such as “The U.S.-China Scorecard: Forces, Geography and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996-2017” (2015) and “Chinese and Indian Strategic Behavior: Growing Power and Alarm” (2012). 

● His articles on Japanese and Chinese foreign policy, and strategic issues have appeared in Foreign Affairs, International Security, Washington Quarterly, Current History and The National Interest.

● Heginbotham received his B.A. from Swarthmore College and his Ph.D. in political science from MIT. He is fluent in Japanese and Chinese.