One:
China’s fleet of warships now outnumbers U.S. warships in the Indo-Pacific by about 10 to 1.
Yes, that allows China to bully neighbors.
But the ratio is China's entire fleet versus our forward-deployed fleet around Asia. Yes, we are at risk at the start of a war that China initiates. But that's not the entire problem as if the only problem is getting us to a 1:1 ratio out there.
Which is why our forward-deployed forces need to survive the initial attack and inflict disproportional losses on China, we need to mobilize and gather our global forces, and then counter-attack.
So don't get stuck on the 10:1 ratio. I don't even want to dangle that much in front of China (or any other potential enemy) to tempt them to strike first. Focus on making sure China can't exploit their local dominance to sink our ships cheaply before we can mass forces.
And two:
According to the Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Phil Davidson, “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”
The "short-of-war" thing is rather key, isn't it?
China has bases, weapons, and capabilities to control the South China Sea. America has the ability to control the Gulf of Mexico. And Britain and France have the ability to control the English Channel.
So it just isn't surprising that China can control the South China Sea initially if it comes to a shooting war.
What I object to is the notion that some have that failing to prevent China from having the ability to control the South China Sea in a shooting war is the same as conceding Chinese territorial claims to the South China Sea. That is false. Peace and war are separate issues.
As long as America and our allies carry out freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea to deny China's claims, peacetime is fine because China won't shoot to enforce their claim.
And if China does shoot to enforce their claim, then it is a shooting war situation that will decide who controls the sea in practice, just like shooting decides who controls any area of sea regardless of legal claims.
Marines will come in handy then.
Also, I don't assume that a war with China would be decided by the forces existing when the war starts.
With two powers unable to come to grips with each other on land decisively (we come closer to being able to do that with mainland allies around China, as I wrote in Military Review), the war at sea could drag on regardless of who is losing and recoils back to parry the winning side's thrusts. We're fooling ourselves if we think China's superior ship-building capacity is irrelevant.
Now whose ignorance is bliss?
