The United States is developing new low-cost weapons to be able to handle the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with “affordable mass” weapons in a potential war. However, experts point out that both the U.S. and China would struggle to sustain a prolonged war. The U.S. struggles with financial costs, while the CCP struggles with manpower.
In July of this year, during the RIMPAC military exercise in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. military showcased a new weapon. A B-1 bomber used Quicksink ammunition to sink the decommissioned MV Monarch Countess ship. The excitement surrounding this new weapon stems from its ability to turn inexpensive dumb bombs into precise anti-ship missiles.
Developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, Quicksink is designed for deployment on fighter jets and bombers. It is essentially a variant of the JDAM system, providing a kit attached to the bomb to give it wings and guidance systems, transforming dumb iron bombs into smart munitions. Quicksink is a variant of placing naval mines at precise locations, with a laser sensor attached to the front of the bomb to destroy stationary or moving surface vessels.
Experts indicate that China will still maintain a significant advantage in the absolute number of anti-ship missiles. Currently, the CCP has amassed various anti-ship missiles, including YJ-12, YJ-18, YJ-83, DF-21, and DF-26. YJ-12 serves as the primary weapon for bombers and coastal launchers; YJ-18 for submarines and large surface warships; YJ-83 deployed by multi-role aircraft and surface warships smaller than destroyers; Dongfeng-21 and Dongfeng-26 ballistic missiles are China’s most extended-range land-based anti-ship weapons.
The U.S. is striving to narrow the gap in the quantity of anti-ship missiles with the CCP by increasing the production of Quicksink. The CCP currently possesses approximately 370 warships.
The U.S. now considers the CCP its most prominent strategic rival, with the risk of conflict escalations particularly high in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.
Twenty-five years ago, the Philippines grounded an old ship on the Ren’ai Reef to assert territorial sovereignty, continuously stationed military personnel there. The CCP sometimes attempts to impede the Philippines’ resupply efforts. Earlier this year, two ships collided, resulting in a Filipino sailor losing his thumb. Earlier, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos stated that if a Filipino were to lose their life in such confrontations in the future, it could be deemed an act of war. The U.S. has a security treaty with the Philippines; therefore, should conflict arise between China and the Philippines, the U.S. may intervene.
In 1949, Chiang Kai-Shek retreated to Taiwan, leading to a separation between Taiwan and the CCP. In recent years, the CCP has threatened military action against Taiwan. The U.S. has the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, which asserts that if the CCP attacks Taiwan without justification, the U.S. would likely defend Taiwan. When questioned multiple times, U.S. President Biden stated that he would be willing to assist in defending Taiwan if China were to attack.
The U.S.’s development of low-cost weapons indicates its consideration of the issue of substantial weapon consumption in the event of war. Who, between the U.S. and China, can bear the cost if war were to break out?
Carl Schuster, former Director of Operations at the United States Indo-Pacific Command Joint Intelligence Center in Hawaii, told Epoch Times that the CCP struggles with manpower while the U.S. struggles with financial costs.
Schuster stated that China’s decades-long one-child policy has resulted in its population becoming a disadvantage. “The size of Chinese families has decreased from traditionally having 4-6 children to just one child. Therefore, families cannot afford the same level of personnel losses as in the past.”
China’s continuous 30-year one-child policy has led to a decline in the number of young people ready for military service, resulting in a shortage of troops, labor for companies, and students for universities – a “triple shortage.” Professor Liu Mingfu of the National Defense University of China stated that the military is facing difficulties in recruiting.
An article in the China National Defense Daily in 2006 stated that over half of the soldiers in the military were “only children of the family,” whereas this ratio was only 20% in 1996. Liu Mingfu mentioned that “the entire army’s proportion of single children is no less than 70%, exceeding 80% in combat units.”
In a public report to the central government in 2012, Liu Mingfu previously mentioned that historically, sending an only child of a Chinese family to the battlefield is a big taboo. Liu warned that the high proportion of only children in the military poses a severe problem for China’s long-term military development, leading to “strategic concerns.”
On the U.S. side, if war were to break out, financial resources present a challenge.
Schuster stated, “U.S. political elites would not support a war where the U.S. military suffers significant casualties. Since the Vietnam War, they have found it easier to walk away from wars rather than defending policies and strategies that result in American casualties. In fact, the U.S. has not encountered a war of attrition since the Vietnam War; we exited that conflict because we deemed the cost too high.”
The U.S. budget for the 1967 fiscal year included $10 billion for the Vietnam War, but the final figure was $20 billion. Government spending during the Vietnam War, primarily with the increased military budget, led to rising inflation rates from 1965 to the early 1970s. President Lyndon B. Johnson was criticized for increasing government expenditures without raising related taxes, causing a surge in overall demand and widespread price increases.
Schuster mentioned that World War II was the last time the U.S. devoted its entire industry and people to war. Since then, the U.S. has not funded wars by raising taxes or cutting domestic spending.
One-third of the cost of World War I and half of the cost of World War II were paid for by raising taxes. During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt described taxation as a “patriotic duty,” raising business taxes, imposing a “wealth tax,” increasing estate taxes, and expanding the number of taxpayers to around 80% of the labor force by 1945.
However, the funding model for wars after the September 11 attacks was entirely different – war costs were almost entirely paid for by debt, with no wartime tax increases or spending cuts. In fact, during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush significantly reduced federal taxes in 2001 and 2003. President Donald Trump further decreased taxes in 2017. Overall, federal tax revenues decreased from 18.8% of GDP in 2001 to 16.2% in early 2020. During the same period, the federal debt held by the public increased from $3.5 trillion to $20 trillion. War expenses contributed at least $2.2 trillion to this growth.
Schuster remarked, “Therefore, the U.S. does not have enough fiscal reserves to fight a war of attrition without borrowing, and its political elites lack the courage to raise taxes to fund it without borrowing.”
Additionally, in terms of weapon manufacturing, China has a production capacity advantage. Schuster commented, “Not only does China have cost advantages in production, but it also possesses larger manufacturing facilities than the U.S. China can readily access many essential materials like rare earth elements, which are used in the production of high-tech weapons and the precise sensors and systems used with these weapons.”
Hence, both the U.S. and China see war as something to be avoided.
In 2021, U.S. Secretary of Defense Austin outlined the U.S.’s defense strategy at a change-of-command ceremony at the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii: “The cornerstone of U.S. defense remains deterrence, ensuring that our adversaries understand the folly of direct conflict.”
Austin further stated, “Throughout U.S. history, deterrence means establishing in the minds of our potential adversaries a fundamental fact: the costs and risks of aggression do not outweigh any imagined benefits.”
However, Austin indicated that looking to the future, deterrence must be different from the past and described new approaches as “comprehensive deterrence.” Austin mentioned that comprehensive deterrence includes having the best weapon systems and latest technology to make adversaries think twice before acting.