Archipelagic Defense - 笹川平和財団

Executive SummaryJapan, comprising the first island chain’s northern sector, possesses formidable capabilities ofits own and can bolster its territorial defenses without much U.S. support. By contrast, U.S.forces would probably need to take on a larger role in the Philippines. The Alliance, perhaps inconcert with Australia, would also likely have to provide the bulk of the Coalition’s operationalreserve and counteroffensive forces along the first island chain.Depending upon their resources and level of technical competence, Alliance and Coalition militaries engaged in implementing Archipelagic Defense can enhance its effectiveness by augmenting U.S. defenses by positioning, over time, substantially larger forces in aforward-deployed posture (and perhaps eventually a forward-based posture); reducing reliance on vulnerable land and sea bases, as well as surface ships, through acombination of systems capable of conducting long-range scouting and strike operations incontested environments, and active and passive defenses to degrade the Chinese People’sLiberation Army’s (PLA) ability to strike effectively at extended ranges; forming a highly mobile operational reserve—primarily of air, cyber, long-range strike,and maritime forces—capable of deploying rapidly to threatened sectors along the first andsecond island chains; emphasizing capabilities directly related to air, sea, and information denial operations,which the PLA states are competitions it must dominate in order to undertake offensivecampaigns; improving the U.S. battle network’s robustness through the exploration (and, where appropriate, implementation) of alternative satellite- and terrestrial-based architectures and theestablishment of a world-class competence in operating under mission-type orders andcommander’s intent; creating and/or augmenting ground forces capable of conducting cross-domain missions,to include air and missile defense, coastal defense, and extended-range precision strikes; creating and/or augmenting advanced irregular warfare ground forces—especially in thePhilippines and Taiwan—armed with state-of-the-art communications and precision-guidedrockets, artillery, mortars, and missiles, and supported in wartime by U.S. advisors withaccess to remote extended-range fires; denying China the ability to exploit its strategic depth by holding key strategic military andeconomic assets in its interior at risk; and fostering greater Alliance and Coalition partner cooperation and interoperability, to includefrequent, rigorous, and realistic training.Looking beyond the near- and mid-term future, it appears the character of the military competition is likely to experience significant (and perhaps disruptive) shifts over the next decadeor so. Rapid advances are occurring across a range of military-related technologies, includingartificial intelligence, the biosciences, big data, directed energy, nanotechnology, novel formsof propulsion and energy storage, and robotics. The Alliance must accord high priority to identifying how these technologies can be leveraged to improve its competitive position. Historysuggests that those militaries that identify and exploit such opportunities will enjoy a major7

advantage over their rivals. Thus, there is great incentive to be the first, or among the first, toidentify and exploit the “next big thing” (or things) in warfare.Implementing Archipelagic Defense will require a significant increase in the resources devotedto defense by Japan and the United States, and perhaps by like-minded states in the region aswell. Tokyo and Washington might need to increase investments in their defenses by 15–20percent—to between 4 and 4.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for the Americans andbetween 1.15 to 1.20 percent of GDP for the Japanese.The burden can be mitigated in several ways. First, since Archipelagic Defense cannot beimplemented overnight, the cost of doing so will, by necessity, be spread over time. Thus, theincreases in defense funding can be ramped up relatively slowly.Second, both Japan and the United States can reduce or eliminate lower priority deploymentsand capabilities to better align their overall military postures to meet the challenge posed byChina.Third, orienting Alliance military capabilities to support Archipelagic Defense can improveAmerican and Japanese forces’ effectiveness, as resources would be shifted to those capabilitiesthat are most useful and away from those that could be reduced at relatively little risk.Fourth, the Alliance’s decision to take forceful action to deal with China’s belligerent behaviorcan do much to convince other like-minded states in the Indo-Pacific region to join in counterbalancing China. Support from other states, such as Australia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines,Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam can significantly reduce the stress on Americanand Japanese forces and budgets.Archipelagic Defense is not a panacea for all forms of Chinese aggression, any more thanNATO’s conventional deterrent solved the problems once posed by Moscow’s wars of nationalliberation and nuclear buildup. But establishing such a posture would represent an essential—and long-overdue—first step in counterbalancing China’s revisionist ambitions.Finally, the list of initiatives outlined in this study is not exhaustive. There will be aspects ofArchipelagic Defense that will only become apparent after further research and analysis. In asense, what is described in this study might be termed “Archipelagic Defense, Version 1.0.” Thedynamic character of the military competition in the Western Pacific in particular, and the IndoPacific in general, guarantee that Archipelagic Defense will need to be modified over time;hence the need for persistent planning. One thing is certain: given this study’s assessment of thesituation, planning needs to begin now, and it should begin with Japan and the United States.8

Introduction

IntroductionWhy Archipelagic Defense?For more than two decades, the Western Pacific has experienced an unprecedented period ofpeace and prosperity thanks to the political stability underwritten by the United States. Chinahas arguably been the principal beneficiary of this stability, as reflected in its remarkableeconomic growth and expanding influence. Far from opposing China’s rise, both Japan andthe United States have sought to engage China in the hope that it would become a responsiblestakeholder in an international system that emphasizes the peaceful resolution of disputesamong nations and recognizes the common interest all nations have in the effective functioning of a global economy.Despite the efforts of Tokyo and Washington, however, the Western Pacific theater of operations (WPTO)1 has become increasingly unstable over the past decade. While North Korea hasposed a persistent threat to security in Northeast Asia, a far greater threat to regional peace andharmony exists in the form of a revisionist China, whose expanding territorial claims includeTaiwan, much of the South China Sea, and the Senkaku Islands.Beijing’s behavior is consistent both with rising revisionist powers2 and Chinese strategicculture. With respect to the latter, Beijing’s pursuit of its expansionist aims is reflected in thewritings of the great Chinese strategist, Sun Tzu, who argued that the mark of a great general isnot to win a hundred battles, but to convince his rival to give up without a fight. Hence, we findBeijing biding its time, gradually shifting the balance of power in the region through its militarybuildup and acts of low-level, ambiguous “gray zone” aggression. Chinese actions, particularlyin the South China Sea, but in South Asia and East Africa as well, are also consistent with theancient Chinese game of Wei-Ch’i (known in Japan and in Western cultures as “Go”), whichinvolves defeating one’s rival primarily by positioning homogenous “forces” in the form ofstones in advantageous ways so as to create positional advantage, rather than by physicallycapturing enemy pieces as in the game of chess.3If China can continue to improve its positional advantage without the direct use of force, manycountries in the region will feel increasingly compelled to accept the rise of a new regional orderwhose rules are determined by Beijing alone. Japan could be confronted with the unwelcomechoice of greatly increasing its military capabilities or accepting Chinese hegemony. As forthe United States, it would forfeit its long-standing objective of preventing the rise of a hostile12310The Western Pacific Theater of Operations contains both the first and second island chains, extending fromthe Japanese island of Hokkaido in the north to Australia in the south, and from Hawaii in the east to Chinain the west.Aaron Friedberg, A Contest for Supremacy (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011), 40.See Scott A. Boorman, The Protracted Game: A Wei-Ch’i Interpretation of Maoist Revolutionary Strategy(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1971). See also David Lai, “Learning from the Stones: A Go Approachto Mastering China’s Strategic Concept, Shi” (Carlisle PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College,May 2004).

Introductionhegemonic power on the Eurasian landmass.4Continued efforts by the community of nations to preserve peace and harmony in the region byencouraging China to adhere to the current rules-based international order have not succeededin dissuading Beijing from its provocative behavior. Consequently, other like-minded states inthe Asia-Pacific region are increasingly looking to the two great Pacific democracies, Japan andthe United States, for leadership.Figure 1. The Western Pacific theater of operationsSource: The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency, 2017, available online at: -factbook/docs/refmaps.html ; and Asia Maritime Transparency Institute, “Island Features of the South China Sea,”Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017, available online at: https://amti.csis.org/scs-features-map/ .Unlike Japan, the United States is a global military power and confronts growing challengesto peace in Europe and the Middle East, as well as in the Western Pacific. And it does so withdiminishing resources.5 Russian aggression in Ukraine and concerns over Moscow’s intentionswith regard to the Baltic States and Syria have distracted Washington from its proclaimed“pivot” to the Asia-Pacific. And despite the signing of a treaty intended to dissuade Iran frompursuing a nuclear capability, that country continues to wage proxy wars against U.S. securitypartners in the Middle East.45Andrew F. Krepinevich, Preserving the Balance: A U.S. Eurasia Defense Strategy (Washington DC: Center forStrategic and Budgetary Assessments [CSBA], 2017), 1–4.Ibid., 38-44, 59-74.11

These realities, combined with the growing Chinese belligerence, find Tokyo taking on anexpanded role in its own defense and in regional affairs. Japan’s Diet has passed legislationfacilitating this role, and the Japan Self-Defense Forces have started adapting and enhancingtheir capabilities to discourage acts of aggression or coercion against the Japanese archipelago,including the Ryukyu Islands.In the face of the growing challenge posed by China, both Tokyo and Washington must decidehow best to cooperate within the framework of the Japan-U.S. Alliance (hereafter referred tosimply as the “Alliance”) to preserve the peace and stability in the Western Pacific. A numberof potential defense strategies and military posture options exist. Those involving initiatingwar or engaging in acts of coercion against China are neither desirable nor consistent withthe values of Japan or the United States. On the other hand, a strategy based on appeasingor accommodating China by accepting its demands for control over the Senkakus, the SouthChina Sea islands, and Taiwan, and thus accepting China’s expansionist agenda, would likelyincrease regional instability and encourage Beijing to act as the region’s hegemon rather thanas a member of the community of nations. Simply put, should China gain control of the SouthChina Sea, Taiwan, or portions of the East China Sea, either through aggression or coercion, itwould produce a fundamental shift in the balance of power and could trigger a collapse of therules-based international order in the region and beyond.Japanese political and military leaders emphasize that their efforts are designed to secure peaceand stability along the northern sector of the first island chain.6 This approach is consistent withlong-term American regional interests and obligations. The United States has either defensetreaties or implied security commitments with the three countries that comprise the chain:Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan. Both Tokyo and Washington have a common objective inconvincing China that its future lies not in regional hegemony but in being a member of theAsia-Pacific community of nations. Thus, the Alliance must have as its objective deterringBeijing from acts of aggression or coercion along the first island chain.7 Failure to do so wouldgreatly compromise not only Japan’s security but also the peace and stability of the entireWestern Pacific region. Under the rubric of Archipelagic Defense, this study outlines a defenseposture and associated operational concept to accomplish this objective.6712The first island chain stretches from the Japanese archipelago (which comprises the northern sector), downthrough Taiwan and the Philippines and south to the Malaysian portion of Borneo (which combine to constitutethe southern sector).In May 2015, I spent time with the Western Army, including its commander and its senior generals. I receivedbriefings and, at the commander’s request, gave a presentation on my preliminary work on ArchipelagicDefense. All of the discussions focused on concepts for deterring aggression or coercion through a forwarddefense of the first island chain. This posture was generally supported by other senior Japanese officials withwhom I met, including Japan’s Vice Minister of Defense Hideshi Tokuchi; National Security Council ViceDirector Nobukatsu Kanehara; and former ministers of defense Shigeru Ishiba and Satoshi Morimoto; as wellas staff of the National Institute for Defense Studies. See Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., “How to Deter China: TheCase for Archipelagic Defense,” Foreign Affairs 94, no. 2 (March–April 2015), -02-16/how-deter-china.

IntroductionLimitations of the EnterpriseThe reader should understand that the challenges associated with crafting a defense strategy todefend the countries of the first island chain from acts of Chinese coercion or aggression areconsiderable. For one thing, this assessment is limited by a lack of data. The three principalmilitary powers that form the basis for this assessment—China, Japan, and the United States—have not engaged in a large-scale war with another major military power since World War II,nearly three-quarters of a century ago. In that interval, the advances in military capabilities havebeen dramatic. Yet the data on the relative value of these new capabilities are meager, culledfrom minor conflicts that may induce as many false conclusions as useful insights regardinghow best to organize, train, equip, and deploy forces in the most effective manner.Even setting aside nuclear weapons, the character of warfare has changed dramatically over thepast 70 years. Advances in military capabilities, such as the introduction of jet aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, and missiles of ever-greater range, speed, accuracy, and lethality, haveshaped and reshaped thinking regarding the sources of military advantage. Over the past 30years, the progressive spread of military-related capabilities into relatively new domains, suchas space and cyberspace, has become central to assessments of the military balance, furthercomplicating matters. The growth of an undersea economic infrastructure further muddies theanalytic waters.8Thus, while most military analysts would agree that the character of a war between major military powers is likely to differ substantially from the 1940s, clarifying these differences and theirimplications poses many problems. Given that the military competition between the Allianceand China shows no signs of ending soon, defense planners must a

states along the first island chain can be seen in China's military buildup, now entering its third decade. Faced with Beijing's increasingly belligerent actions, many states in the Asia-Pacific region are increasingly looking to the two great Pacific democracies and long-standing allies, Japan and the United States, for leadership.