Comparing the performance of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan to the performance of the US military in a conventional war in East Asia against the PRC is not a useful exercise. The Yankees can't claim to be on top because they win an exhibition game against a promising bush league team--which is what the Iraqi Army turned out to be. General Franks did a good job setting policy and using his available resources. However, the contrasts between a Sino-Amiercan conflict and OIF/OEF are more prominent than the comparisons.
We should bear in mind that while carrier-killing missiles probably are directed principally at the US, China has other rivals. Russia is recovering, albeit slowly and unevenly. India is getting strong and rich quickly. A large and heavily mechanized PLA almost certainly is intended for action against either of these rivals, not the US. Weapons that are serviceable against the USN are even more serviceable against the Russian Pacific Fleet and the Indian Navy. The same goes for the PLAAF. I think it's good politics for the Chinese leadership to put on a good show of being able to bloody the nose of the US Navy, but in the end the real rivals are in Asia. Since messing with the US means foreswearing the flow of raw materials across the various oceans easily interdicted by the USN, the Chinese know that sinking a US carrier is a worse-case option, not a most-likely option.
As an example, China recently signed a trade agreement with Brazil. Sino-Brazilian trade operates under the guns, so to speak, of the USN. Even if the Russians were of a mind to mess with this, they would end up fighting the convoy escorts of the Western powers. Probably, this isn't worth it. China's seaborne trade depends on American goodwill, new missiles notwithstanding. Until the balance of power at sea changes significantly, this fact will be far more salient than the ability of a new missile to hit a US carrier.
Webstral
|