AMITAI ETZIONI:   The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China. It is a momentous conclusion, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress. This important change in the United States’ posture toward China has largely been driven by the Pentagon.

The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.

Have the White House and Congress properly reviewed the Pentagon’s approach—and found its threat assessment of China convincing? If not, what are the United States’ overarching short- and long-term political strategies for dealing with an economically and militarily rising China?………….

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates instructed the Chiefs of Staff to begin work on the AirSea Battle (ASB) project and, in September of 2009 . . . a classified Memorandum of Agreement was signed allowing the US “to counter growing challenges to US freedom of action.”

In late 2011 Gates’ successor, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, also signed off on the ASB and formed the new Multi-Service Office to Advance AirSea Battle. Thus, ASB was conceived, born, and began to grow.

AirSea Battle calls for a campaign to reestablish power projection capabilities by launchinga “blinding attack” against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers, surveillance and communication platforms, satellite and anti-satellite weapons, and command and control nodes.

US forces could then enter contested zones and conclude the conflict by bringing to bear the full force of their material military advantage.

One defense think tank report, “AirSea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept”, suggests that China is likely to respond to what is effectively a major direct attack on its mainland with all the military means at its disposal—including its stockpile of nuclear arms.

Joshua Rovner of the U.S. Naval War College notes that deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as preemptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into “a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma.”

LD: “Mistakenly perceived” is disingenuous. Why should the Chinese be “mistaken” in their belief that America would like to destroy their nuclear facilties? The Americans can hardly be perceived as benevolent aggressors.

Several defense analysts in the United States and abroad, not least in China, see AirSea Battle as being highly provocative. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright stated in 2012 that, “AirSea Battle is demonizing China. That’s not in anybody’s interest.” An internal assessment of ASB by the Marine Corps commandant cautions that “an Air-Sea Battle-focused Navy and Air Force would be preposterously expensive to build in peace time” and if used in a war against China would cause “incalculable human and economic destruction.”………

In the past, first strike nuclear strategies were foresworn and steps were taken to avoid a war precipitated by miscommunications, accidents, or miscalculations. In contrast, AirSea Basttle requires that the United States be able to take the war to the mainland with the goal of defeating China, which quite likely would require striking first. Such a strategy is nothing short of a hegemonic intervention………….

LD: The general public is evidently being kept in the dark by the mainstream media that a nuclear first strike against China is being contemplated by rogue elements within the Pentagon.

The military modernization of China often provokes concerns that it is ‘catching up.’ China shows little interest in managing global affairs or imposing its ideology on other nations. Instead, China has shown a strong interest in securing the flow of raw materials and energy on which its economy depends.

In conclusion, it is widely agreed that the United States can no longer afford to fight two major wars. The most urgent threats to US security are to be found in the Middle East—not the Far East.

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University. He has served as a Senior Advisor to the White House and has taught at Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley…………  http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/america-plans-unprovoked-nuclear-attack-on-china-edited-and-abridged-from-various-sources-by-lasha-darkmoon/