INDEX – CHINA DA

***1NC***	2

1NC -- CHINA DA	2

1NC -- CHINA DA	3

***UNIQUENESS WALL***	4

UNIQUENESS: CONTAINMENT NOW	4

UNIQUENESS: CONTAINMENT NOW	6

***LINKS***	7

LINK: GENERAL FORCES CONTAIN CHINA	7

LINK: JAPAN/SOUTH KOREA KEY	8

LINK: JAPAN FORCES KEY	9

LINK: OKINAWA KEY	10

LINK: TROOPS KEY TO DETERRENCE	11

***IMPACTS***	12

IMPACT: INDO-SINO WAR	12

***impacts cont***

IMPACT: SOUTH CHINA SEAS	13

EXT: CHINA WILL ATTACK SCS	14

IMPACT: TAIWAN	15

EXT: CHINA WILL ATTACK TAIWAN	16

EXT: YES TAIWAN WAR	18

***IMPACT INTERNALS***	19

I/LINK: W/D ( CHINESE AGGRESSION	19

INTERNAL LINK: CHINA IS CRAZY	20

IMPACT BOOSTER: ASIA MOST PROBABLE	21

TURNS CASE: CONFLICT ESCALATION	22

***AT: AFF ARGS***	23

AT: WE’RE A SMALL REDUCTION	23

AT: CHINA WON’T GO NUTS	24

AFF: NO TAIWAN WAR	25

***1NC***

1NC -- CHINA DA

A. UNIQUENESS -- U.S. ENGAGED IN A CONTAINMENT POLICY NOW – JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA KEY.

POMFRET 10. [John, staffwriter, “US continues effort to counter China’s influence in Asia” Washington Post July 23 -- DA 7/25/10]

The push comes at the same time that the administration's tone with China has turned tougher, especially on the nettlesome issue of human rights. In recent speeches and interactions with Chinese authorities, the administration has abandoned an earlier approach of patience and quiet engagement. The decision to resume relations with Kopassus, the elite special forces of the Indonesian military, prompted strong criticism from advocates for human rights. "In the Bush administration, we saw them seek military allies regardless of human rights abuses in pursuit of the war on terror," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. This administration, she said, "will seek military alliances regardless of human rights abuses -- in response to China." Other analysts said that given Indonesia's transition toward democratic governance, it makes sense to reengage with powerful elements of its military, in part to build up counterweights to China's increasing power in the region. China's rise is also a significant factor in the Obama administration's moves to strengthen ties with traditional allies, such as South Korea and Japan, as well as with Malaysia and Laos and even with Vietnam, a former foe. It also was a factor in the recent opening to Burma. "Indonesia is the anchor country of ASEAN," said Ernie Bower, an expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, on the 10 countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. "And there's a recognition that you need to have a strong foundation in ASEAN to deal with China over time." In some cases, China's diplomatic missteps have helped the administration improve ties with Asian nations. China's decision not to criticize North Korea directly for allegedly sinking a South Korean warship and killing 46 South Korean sailors on March 26 is believed to have contributed to a significant warming of relations between Washington and Seoul. China's continued opposition to planned U.S.-South Korean military exercises has only further helped bolster U.S. strategic ties with Seoul. The buzzing of two Japanese warships by Chinese military helicopters in April was used by Japanese officials as political cover to support more fully Tokyo's alliance with the United States. That event, coupled with the sinking of the South Korean warship, dampened talk, at least for the time being, within the ruling Democratic Party of Japan about refashioning the alliance with the United States and forging better relations with China.

B. LINK – STRONG EAST ASIAN PRESENCE IS KEY TO CONTAIN CHINA – PLAN DESTROYS THIS.

JOHNSON & KRULAK 9 [Admiral Jay, Chief of Naval Operations & General Charles, Commandant of the Marine Corps “Forward presence essential to American interests,” United States Navy, Reviewed: 17 August 2009, pg. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=274 -- DA 7/25/10]

Deter: Presence does not prevent every crisis. Some rogues are going to be tempted to strike no matter what the odds, and will require active measures to be deterred. When crises reach this threshold, there is no substitute for sustained actual presence. Naval expeditionary forces can quickly take on the role of the very visible fist. Friends and potential enemies recognize naval expeditionary forces as capable of defending or destroying. This visible fist, free from diplomatic and territorial constraints, forms the bedrock of regional deterrence. For example, the mere presence of naval expeditionary forces deterred Chinese attempts to derail the democratic process in Taiwan and countered Iraqi saber-rattling toward Jordan. It's hard to quantify the cost savings of deterring a crisis before it requires our intervention. But the savings are real — in dollars, and often in blood and human misery.

1NC -- CHINA DA

UNCHECKED CHINA ENSURES US-SINO WAR – MOST PROBABLE SCENARIO.

BANDOW 10 [Doug, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Vice President of Policy for Citizen Outreach, the Bastiat Scholar in Free Enterprise at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cobden Fellow in International Economics at the Institute for Policy Innovation, the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance, the Senior Fellow in International Religious Persecution at the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, former special assistant to President Reagan, former editor of Inquiry magazine, widely published in such periodicals as Foreign Policy, Harper's, National Interest, National Review, The New Republic, and Orbis, as well as leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post; “Engaging China to Maintain Peace in East Asia” May 25, d/a: 7/15/10, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11845]

China's neighbors certainly would see the PRC's rise as anything but peaceful. Any coercive act would be a powerful impetus for Japan to create a larger military and adopt a more aggressive foreign policy. The greatest risk would be a confrontation with the U.S. Economic retaliation would be certain and military intervention possible. Given the length and strength of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, no American administration could easily stand by if the PRC used force against Taipei. Chinese aggression also would validate the warnings of American hawks, who are pressing for ever higher military outlays despite America's dearth of serious adversaries. Even Europe would see Beijing as a threatening actor, rather as major European powers came to view Wilhelmine Germany, and likely would retaliate economically. Washington should press the PRC to take two simple steps: renounce the use of force to resolve Taiwan's status and remove missiles now targeting the island. In return, Taiwan should indicate that it will not ally with any party or allow other powers to use bases against the PRC. The U.S. should explain that it has no intention of intervening militarily against China, maintaining a military alliance with Taiwan, or using military facilities on the island. Washington also should pull back other military units stationed nearby, such as the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force on Okinawa. Demonstrating its pacific intent would enable the PRC to defuse proposals to revamp America's alliances with South Korea and Japan to deal with other contingencies — meaning China. Although Beijing's rise has been steady, its continued rise will be smoother if achieved in cooperation with its neighbors and without hostility from them or America. The PRC's own actions will be the most important factor in determining other nations' reactions. It is often said that Americans live in a dangerous world. We do. But shoe and underwear bombers do not match the threat posed by nation states armed with nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, carrier groups, and armored divisions. While the future is uncertain, it is difficult to imagine the U.S. at war with Russia, India, or any significant power other than China. Thankfully, conflict with the latter also remains unlikely. But the mere possibility of a future military confrontation reinforces the importance of the world's two most important nations working to defuse potential conflicts. Which means cooperating on North Korea and Taiwan. Doing so successfully would go a long way to make the 21st century one of peace and stability.

THE IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR.

STRAITS TIMES, 2K [“No One Gains in War over Taiwan,” 6/25/00, Lexis]

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.

***UNIQUENESS WALL***

UNIQUENESS: CONTAINMENT NOW

CONTAINING CHINA NOW – MASSIVE INCREASE IN DEPLOYMENTS IN THE PACIFIC.

THOMPSON 10. [Mark, investigative reporter, “US Tomahawk missiles deployed near China send message” Time July 9 – DA 7/24/10]

If China's satellites and spies were working properly, there would have been a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese navy last week. A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified "boomers" to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads. Their capability makes watching these particular submarines especially interesting. The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan. (See pictures of the U.S. military in the Pacific.) That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms were likely sounded when the U.S.S. Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day. And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the U.S.S. Florida surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood. "There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."

CONTAINMENT NOW – SUBS AND EXERCISES.

THOMPSON 10. [Mark, investigative reporter, “US Tomahawk missiles deployed near China send message” Time July 9 – DA 7/24/10]

Last month, the Navy announced that all four of the Tomahawk-carrying subs were operationally deployed away from their home ports for the first time. Each vessel packs "the firepower of multiple surface ships," says Captain Tracy Howard of Submarine Squadron 16 in Kings Bay, Ga., and can "respond to diverse threats on short notice." The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st century. Reduced tensions since the end of the Cold War have seen the U.S. scale back its deployment of nuclear weapons, allowing the Navy to reduce its Trident fleet from 18 to 14. (Why 14 subs, as well as bombers and land-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons, are still required to deal with the Russian threat is a topic for another day.) (See "Obama Shelves U.S. Missile Shield: The Winners and Losers.") Sure, the Navy could have retired the four additional subs and saved the Pentagon some money, but that's not how bureaucracies operate. Instead, it spent about $4 billion replacing the Tridents with Tomahawks and making room for 60 special-ops troops to live aboard each sub and operate stealthily around the globe. "We're there for weeks, we have the situational awareness of being there, of being part of the environment," Navy Rear Admiral Mark Kenny explained after the first Tomahawk-carrying former Trident sub set sail in 2008. "We can detect, classify and locate targets and, if need be, hit them from the same platform."(Comment on this story.) The submarines aren't the only new potential issue of concern for the Chinese. Two major military exercises involving the U.S. and its allies in the region are now under way. More than three dozen naval ships and subs began participating in the "Rim of the Pacific" war games off Hawaii on Wednesday. Some 20,000 personnel from 14 nations are involved in the biennial exercise, which includes missile drills and the sinking of three abandoned vessels playing the role of enemy ships. Nations joining the U.S. in what is billed as the world's largest-ever naval war game are Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and Thailand. Closer to China, CARAT 2010 - for Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training - just got under way off Singapore. The operation involves 17,000 personnel and 73 ships from the U.S., Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. (See "Hu's Visit: Finding a Way Forward on U.S.-China Relations.")

CONTAINMENT NOW – INDONESIA PACT.

DREYFUSS 10. [Robert, contributing editor, investigative journalist, Containing China is a Fool’s Errand. Yet Obama’s Deal with Indonesian Thugs is Aimed at Exactly That” The Nation July 23 -- DA 7/25/10]

Indeed, the headline in John Pomfret’s perceptive analysis in the Washington Post today says it all: “U.S. continues effort to counter China.” He reports that the administration is strengthening or rebuilding security ties with a wide range of countries surrounding China, including Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Malaysia, and adds: “The Obama administration's announcement Thursday that it will resume relations with Indonesia's special forces, despite the unit's history of alleged atrocities and assassinations, is the most significant move yet by the United States to strengthen ties in East Asia as a hedge against China’s rise.”

UNIQUENESS: CONTAINMENT NOW

CONTAINING CHINA NOW.

Lee 10 [Peter, Chair of the CRA Board of Directors, and also chair its Government Affairs Committee. Chair of the CRA Board of Directors, and also chair its Government Affairs Committee. “A New Face to US-China Ties” Asia Times, 7.22.2010, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LG22Ad02.html, DA 7/24/10.]

From the Chinese perspective, the Obama administration's China policy increasingly looks, walks and quacks like containment. Apparently, the United States prefers a different term: "pre-empting China's monopoly status". On his blog Washington Note, foreign policy insider Steve Clemons reported on a conversation he had in early June with senior administration officials involved in the international realm. One of the most interesting comments made to a question I posed probing the administration's strategy in Asia, was "Steve, don't watch the hand!" What this person was saying was "don't get lost in everything going on at the surface" in US-China relations or US-Japan relations, but rather look at the other many bits and pieces of America's engagement in the Asia-Pacific that are enhancing US leverage and generating a greater sense among Pacific Rim countries that America is there, engaged, and pre-empting China from enjoying monopoly status. Either by accident or design, US public diplomacy campaigns involving climate change, nuclear proliferation, Internet freedom, Iran and the South Korean boat being sunk, while yielding few concrete gains, have succeeded in one key respect. They have placed China at a geopolitical disadvantage, forcing it to line up with pariahs or near pariahs like Iran, Myanmar and North Korea in opposition to the Western democracies, Japan and South Korea.

CONTAINMENT NOW – US-SOUTH KOREA EXERCISES.

Kate 10 [Daniel Ten, Journalist for Bloomberg, “U.S. Strengthens Asia Military Links Amid Concerns Over China” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-23/u-s-strengthens-asia-military-ties-amid-concern-at-china-s-growing-might.html 7/22/2010, Bloomberg, DA 7/25/2010.]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Asia’s biggest security forum in Hanoi today as the U.S. strengthened defense ties across a region where China’s expanding military reach has triggered unease. Clinton yesterday discussed military cooperation with Vietnam and Defense Secretary Robert Gates restored ties with Indonesia’s special forces after a 12-year gap. A day earlier, the two officials affirmed U.S. support for South Korea in Seoul ahead of joint naval drills that China criticized. Clinton is set to meet China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Hanoi, where both are attending the 27-member Asean Regional Forum. China considers the entire South China Sea as its own, dismissing rival claims, and is building a blue-water fleet to project power beyond its own borders. “China’s assertiveness has caused anxieties in the region,” Carlyle A. Thayer, professor of politics at the Australian Defense Force Academy in Canberra, said by phone. Countries around Asia “are quite happy the U.S. is doing the heavy lifting,” he said. China cut off high-level military exchanges with the U.S. in January over arms sales to Taiwan and has declined to join the Obama administration in blaming North Korea for the sinking of a South Korean warship in March that killed 46 sailors. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said two days ago that the inability to speak directly with Chinese military leaders was a cause for concern.

***LINKS***

LINK: GENERAL FORCES CONTAIN CHINA

STRONG MILITARY KEY TO DETER CHINESE AGGRESSION

Gates 9 ( Robert, Secretary of Defense for the United States. “Submitted Statement on DoD challenges to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Department of Defense. http://www.defense.gov/Speeches/Speech.aspx? SpeechID=1337. 1/27. July 26, 2010.

As we know, China is modernizing across the whole of its armed forces. The areas of greatest concern are Chinese investments and growing capabilities in cyber-and anti-satellite warfare, anti-air and anti-ship weaponry, submarines, and ballistic missiles. Modernization in these areas could threaten America’s primary means of projecting power and helping allies in the Pacific: our bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them. We have seen some improvement in the U.S.-Chinese security relationship recently. Last year, I inaugurated a direct telephone link with the Chinese defense ministry. Military to military exchanges continue, and we have begun a strategic dialogue to help us understand each other’s intentions and avoid potentially dangerous miscalculations. As I’ve said before, the U.S. military must be able to dissuade, deter, and, if necessary, respond to challenges across the spectrum – including the armed forces of other nations. On account of Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be hard pressed at this time to launch another major ground operation. But elsewhere in the world, the United States has ample and untapped combat power in our naval and air forces, with the capacity to defeat any adversary that committed an act of aggression – whether in the Persian Gulf, on the Korean Peninsula, or in the Taiwan Strait. The risk from these types of scenarios cannot be ignored, but it is a manageable one in the short- to mid-term.

LINK: JAPAN/SOUTH KOREA KEY

STRONG ALLIANCE WITH JAPAN AND SOUTH KOREA KEY TO CONTAINING CHINA.

KLARE 6 [Michael T., senior writer for the Asian Times. “Containing China: The US’ Real Objective,”. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD20Ad01.html. October 6. DA -- July, 24 2010.]

The imperative of containing China was first spelled out in a systematic way by Condoleezza Rice while serving as a foreign-policy adviser to George W Bush, then governor of the state of Texas, during the 2000 presidential campaign. In a much-cited article in Foreign Affairs, she suggested that China, as an ambitious rising power, would inevitably challenge vital US interests. "China is a great power with unresolved vital interests, particularly concerning Taiwan," she wrote. "China also resents the role of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region." For these reasons, she stated, "China is not a ‘status quo' power but one that would like to alter Asia's balance of power in its own favor. That alone makes it a strategic competitor, not the 'strategic partner' the Clinton administration once called it." It was essential, she argued, to adopt a strategy that would prevent China's rise as regional power. In particular, "the United States must deepen its cooperation with Japan and South Korea and maintain its commitment to a robust military presence in the region". Washington should also "pay closer attention to India's role in the regional balance", and bring that country into an anti-Chinese alliance system.

STATUS QUO BALANCING CONTAINS CHINA – PLAN DISRUPTS THIS.

KAGAN 7. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund (Robert, August/September. “End of Dreams, Return of History.” http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html. July 30. July 25, 2010.]

If anything, the most notable balancing over the past decade has been aimed not at the American superpower but at the two large powers: China and Russia. In Asia and the Pacific, Japan, Australia, and even South Korea and the nations of Southeast Asia have all engaged in “hedging” against a rising China. This has led them to seek closer relations with Washington, especially in the case of Japan and Australia. India has also drawn closer to the United States and is clearly engaged in balancing against China. Russia’s efforts to increase its influence over what it regards as its “near abroad,” meanwhile, have produced tensions and negative reactions in the Baltics and other parts of Eastern Europe. Because these nations are now members of the European Union, this has also complicated eu-Russian relations. On balance, traditional allies of the United States in East Asia and in Europe, while their publics may be more anti-American than in the past, nevertheless pursue policies that reflect more concern about the powerful states in their midst than about the United States. 12 This has provided a cushion against hostile public opinion and offers a foundation on which to strengthen American relations with these countries after the departure of Bush.

LINK: JAPAN FORCES KEY

US PRESENCE IN JAPAN KEY TO FORWARD DEPLOYMENT IN ASIA – KEY TO CHECK CHINA.

ROOS 10. [John, Ambassador to Japan, “The Enduring Importance of our Security Alliance” Embassy of the US to Japan January 29 -- http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20100129-71.html -- DA 7/25/10]

Yet, even as the United States and Japan work with China as a partner, we have questions about China's accelerating military modernization, especially in areas like cyber warfare, anti-satellite weapons, and the rapid modernization of its nuclear, submarine, and strategic forces. The build-up of military capabilities across from Taiwan over the past decade has the potential to erode the long-standing cross-strait military balance which is so essential to peace and prosperity. Many countries in the region share our concerns about China's recent efforts to limit freedom of navigation in international waters beyond territorial limits. As major maritime trading partners, freedom of navigation is essential to the futures of both the United States and Japan. So while I want to be careful not to overstate these concerns, among these types of uncertainties in this region the deterrent effect of a robust U.S.-Japan Alliance is crucial to ensuring that the dramatic changes in the security environment do not negatively affect this region's future peace and prosperity. The purpose of maintaining a credible deterrent capability is to make the price of using force greater than any potential political or economic gains that could be obtained through the use of force. This is vitally important here in East Asia, which has four of the five largest armed forces in the world. The cost of a military conflict in this region is beyond imagination. In addition to the human toll, even a short conflict would set the global economy back years, if not longer. This is why there has been some concerns expressed these past several weeks about the perceived tensions in our alliance by leaders and editorialists from Singapore to Taiwan to Seoul. Our Alliance is the critical stabilizing force in this area of the world. The fundamental role of U.S. forces in Japan is to make those who would consider the use of force in this region understand that that option is off the table. The forward deployment of U.S. forces puts us in a position to react immediately to emerging threats, and serves as a tangible symbol of our commitment. The 49,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in Japan are our front line forces.

JAPAN KEY TO CONTAIN CHINA.

SHERIDAN 9 [Greg, Foreign editor of The Australian Greg. “Hatoyama poised for global struggle.” The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26027029-7583,00.html. 9/5. 2010]

The Pentagon outlines China's continuing massive military build-up, vastly outstripping its economic growth. Much of the Chinese military spending is hidden, but the Pentagon estimates it could reach up to $US160billion ($190bn) a year.This may seem small compared with the US's military budget in excess of $US500bn, but the US has vast global security responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world, which China does not. And as the Pentagon report shows, much of China's furious military effort, apart from its gigantic expansion plans for its nuclear weapons arsenal, is directed squarely against the US, and designed to make it extremely costly for the US navy to continue to operate in the waters near China's east coast. Here again, Japan is central. Although Japan's modest military build-up has been incremental, it is very hi -tech and is aimed precisely at building a new level of inter-operability with US forces in the context of a revived and newly reciprocal US alliance. This is a minor revolution in Asia-Pacific security, and is one way the US alliance system has maintained the regional balance of military power.

LINK: OKINAWA KEY

THE PLAN DESTROYS OUR POWER PROJECTION CAPABILITIES IN EAST ASIA – MARINES KEY DETERRENT.

ROOS 10. [John, Ambassador to Japan, “The Enduring Importance of our Security Alliance” Embassy of the US to Japan January 29 -- http://tokyo.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20100129-71.html -- DA 7/25/10]

The Marine Corps presence in Okinawa, which I am sure you have all been hearing about, is perhaps the least understood by the general public, but in reality is among the most critical of the forces we deploy in both peacetime and in the unlikely event of conflict. So let me be a little more detailed here and a little technical, because I think it is important for all of us to understand. The III Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa brings together the core capabilities of all of our other services into a rapidly deployable self-contained fighting force known as the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. The Marines combine air, ground, and logistical forces together, so that in any contingency or emergency there would be no need to wait for complicated logistical and airlift support from other services. The short range helicopters assigned to the Marines in Okinawa would be able to rapidly move our ground combat and support units on Okinawa across the island chain that links Northeast and Southeast Asia to wherever they would be required. For heavier or longer-range operations, the Marines would be supported by our naval fleet in Sasebo, just a few days sailing time away, which could project both Marine ground and air power anywhere in the region. This mobility and forward presence is why the Marines in Okinawa are routinely our primary responder to major natural disasters in Asia, such as the 2004 Asian Tsunami, mudslides in the Philippines, or the recent typhoon in Taiwan. A little known fact is that the Marines, along with other U.S. forces, have led or participated in 12 significant humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions in the last five years alone, helping to save hundreds of thousands of lives in this region. The Marines in Okinawa would play a similar rapid response role in any armed conflict in the region, arriving first on the scene to secure critical facilities, conduct civilian evacuations, and provide forward land and air strike power. If the Marines were moved entirely off of Japan, their mobility and effectiveness in the region would be impacted, and it could be perceived negatively with regard to the United States' commitment to this region. The next closest ground combat troops available are Army contingents based in Hawaii, and the distance that they would have to travel would delay U.S. responsiveness in regional contingencies. In addition, the ability of the Marines and all our forces in Japan to conduct realistic training exercises ensures not only that they are ready to respond to any situation, but also serves as a visible deterrent. What we do here in Japan is carefully watched throughout the region. Whether it is F-15 air-to-air combat drills off of Kadena Air Force Base or visits by Ballistic Missile Defense-equipped Aegis destroyers to civilian ports on the Sea of Japan, publicly exercising our forces' capabilities to defend Japan makes it less likely that we will ever need to use them in a real conflict.

LINK: TROOPS KEY TO DETERRENCE

PRESENCE IN EAST ASIA IS KEY TO A VISIBLE DETERRENT.

DAVIS ET AL 9 [Jacquelyn, Ex. VP – Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Pres. – IFPA and Prof. Int’l. Sec. Studies – Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy of Tufts U. and former DOD Consultant, Charles M. Perry , VP and Dir. Studies – IFPA, and James L. Schoff, Associate Dir. Asia-Pacific Studies – IFPA, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis White Paper, “Updating U.S. Deterrence Concepts and Operational Planning: Reassuring Allies, Deterring Legacy Threats, and Dissuading Nuclear "Wannabes"”, February 2009. http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/Updating_US_Deterrence_Concepts.pdf DA 7/25/10]

Symbols have always been important to the Alliance and to the concept of deterrence, and for many years the American emphasis on forward-deployed forces in Europe and Asia was seen as emblematic (and proof) of the U.S. extended deterrence commitment. In Europe, the deployment of V and VII Corps Headquarters was perceived as the substance of that commitment, while in Asia the deployment of 100,000 forces was explicitly identified as the key to operational planning and to the credibility of American commitments to Japan and South Korea. The 100,000 level of forward-deployed U.S. forces was considered to be necessary to implement operational plans, but it also had a profound political and psychological importance in relation to counter-proliferation and deterrence planning. Hence, when the Bush administration began to de-emphasize the 100,000-troop threshold in Asia and discount the two major theaters of war (MTW)-construct in 2001, and as U.S. military personnel were moved out of Korea along with planned re-deployments from Japan and Europe as part of the Pentagon’s Global Posture Review (GPR), suspicions of a global U.S. retreat grew in alliance capitals in Europe and Asia. Despite U.S. efforts to characterize global troop re-deployments in the context of military transformation and modernization, these tangible symbols of the extended deterrence construct have been devalued, leaving us with the dilemma of how to convey and signal our deterrence commitments and the credibility of extended deterrence at a time when more and more U.S. forward deployed assets are being drawn back to the continental United States (CONUS). One answer to this dilemma lies in the development of a well considered strategic communications/information operations (IO) roadmap designed to reassure allies and to convey the seriousness of our intentions to prospective adversaries. Specifically, this IO roadmap should highlight the capabilities of U.S. forces in the region and demonstrate their potential through realistic training exercises with allies.

FORWARD DEPLOYMENT IS KEY TO CREDIBLE DETERRENCE.

THOMASON 2. [JAMES, Senior Analyst in the Strategy, Forces and Resources Division @ Institute for Defense Analyses Ph.D. in International Relations @ Northwestern “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD Volume I: Main Report,” July Institute for Defense Analyses, IDA Paper P-3707, DA – 7/25/10]

Richard Haass - Also writing in the mid-1990s, Richard Haass, then of the Brookings Institution, alluded explicitly to what he viewed as the use of US forces deployed and stationed forward in a deterrent role and, implicitly at least, to their value in that role [Haass, 1999]. Force is used every day [by the US] for deterrence; examples include maintaining strategic nuclear forces on some kind of alert, stationing large numbers of forces in Europe and Korea, and the US Navy sailing the high seas to signal US interests and a readiness to act on their behalf. [p. 20] Haass, like Dismukes, alluded to the importance of appropriate signaling behavior in successful deterrence: The movement and use of military forces is obviously a critical component of a deterrent strategy. Forces can be positioned, deployed, and/or exercised to signal the existence of interests and the readiness to respond militarily if those interests are either threatened or attacked….Deterrence can be the purpose behind long-term deployments, such as the US military presence on the Korean Peninsula or in Europe since the end of World War II. Such deployments are structural, to remain until the political map or international situation fundamentally changes….Deterrence can also take the form of a response to a specific or tactical situation that emerges suddenly—say the perceived threat to shipping in the Persian Gulf in the late 1980’s when the United States decided to reflag Kuwaiti vessels, or the stationing of US and coalition forces in Saudi Arabia under Desert Shield to deter Iraqi aggression against Saudi Arabia following the invasion of Kuwait. [pp. 50–51].

***IMPACTS***

IMPACT: INDO-SINO WAR

CHINA WILL ATTACK INDIA – PERCEIVED AS THE WEAKEST PART OF THE ALLIANCE IN AMERICA’S CONTAINMENT STRATEGY – WITHDRAWAL PROMPTS CHINESE ACTION.

MALIK 9 [Mohan, Professor of Asian Security at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies “Bordering on Danger”, Wall Street Journal, 10-15, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574474433189540 954.html -- DA 7/26/10]

It has often been taken for granted that China and India will rise simultaneously and peacefully in the 21st century. But a recent flare-up challenges that view. Thirty-seven years after the two countries fought a border war and 28 years since they opened settlement negotiations, the entire frontier from Kashmir to Burma remains in question. It would be dangerous to ignore this festering sore any longer. The dispute stretches back to the British Raj, when colonial official Sir Henry McMahon drew the boundary between India and Tibet at the Shimla Convention in 1913. China has never recognized the McMahon Line, and regards the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as part of its Tibetan Autonomous Region. Lately the border has been arousing more fervent passions than usual. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the state of Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month, irking Beijing and prompting New Delhi to assert “Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India.” Earlier this year, Beijing attempted to block a $1.3 billion loan to India by the Asian Development Bank, part of which was meant for a watershed project in Arunachal Pradesh. The war of words is likely to escalate as the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama plans to visit Arunachal Pradesh next month. Beijing is pressuring India via diplomatic protests and a media campaign to make the Dalai Lama abandon his planned trip. The causes for the recent deterioration in relations are complex. China perceives India as the weakest link in an evolving anti-China coalition of democratic and maritime powers (the United States, Japan, Australia and India). Viewing India as a pawn in Western designs to encircle and contain China, Chinese leaders worry about the ramifications of India’s power particularly in Tibet, a concern fanned by the March 2008 uprisings there. A common theme in state media this year is the desire to capture the lost lands and crush India for daring to compete with China.

CHINA-INDIA CONFLICT DRAWS IN MAJOR POWERS AND ESCALATES TO GLOBAL WAR.

EMMOTT 8 [Bill, Former Editor – Economist, “Tibet is one thing, but India and China tensions Spell Bigger Disaster”, Sunday Times, 3-30, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1993902/posts -- DA 7/26/10]

An array of disputes, historical bitternesses and regional flashpoints weigh down on all three countries. Conflict is not inevitable but nor is it inconceivable. If it were to occur – over Taiwan, say, or the Korean peninsula or Tibet or Pakistan – it would not simply be an intra-Asian affair. The outside world would be drawn in. Such a conflict could break out suddenly. This month’s unrest in Tibet has shown just how volatile China can be – and how easily one of those flashpoints could cause international tension. In 1962 China and India fought a border war that humiliated India and left an enduring legacy of bitterness and suspicion. Both countries are now increasing their military spending and trying to modernise their armed forces. The border dispute remains unresolved.

IMPACT: SOUTH CHINA SEAS

AN AGGRESSIVE CHINA WILL INVADE THE SOUTH CHINA SEAS CAUSING CONFLICT.

WALDRON 97. [Arthur, Professor of Strategy and Policy – Naval War College, Commentary, 3-1, http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.7442,filter.all/pub_detail.asp DA 7/26/10]

Then there is Southeast Asia, which, having weathered the Vietnam War and a variety of domestic insurgencies, and having moved onto the track of prosperity, shows no desire to complicate matters with political headaches. Fault lines nevertheless remain, and not least between the numerous and disproportionately successful ethnic Chinese and other inhabitants. And here again China is a looming worry. Beijing's claim of "unquestionable sovereignty" over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea and its recent seizure of one of them, Mischief Reef, also claimed by the Philippines, have alarmed Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, and rattled Indonesia, which asserts its right to gas fields nearby. India and South Asia, long preoccupied with their own internal rivalries and content with their rates of growth, now look with envy and some concern as East Asia opens an ever-increasing lead in economics, military power, and general global clout. Indian and Chinese forces still face each other in the high mountains of their disputed border, as they have done since their war in 1962. Pakistan to the west is a key Chinese ally, and beyond, in the Middle East, China is reportedly supplying arms to Syria, Iraq, and Iran. To the north, Tibet (whose government-in-exile has been based in India since 1959) is currently the object of a vicious Chinese crackdown. And a new issue between India and China is Beijing's alliance with Rangoon and its reported military or intelligence-gathering presence on offshore Burmese territories near the Indian naval base in the Andaman Islands. Finally there is Russia, which has key interests in Asia. Sidelined by domestic problems, but only temporarily, Moscow has repeatedly faced China in this century, both in the northeast and along the Mongolian border. The break-up of the Soviet Union has added a potentially volatile factor in the newly independent states of Central Asia and Chinese-controlled Xinjiang (Sinkiang), where Beijing is currently fighting a low-level counterinsurgency. An Arms Race in Asia Making these flash-points all the more volatile has been a dramatic increase in the quantity and quality of China's weapons acquisitions. An Asian arms race of sorts was already gathering steam in the post-cold-war era, driven by national rivalries and the understandable desire of newly rich nation-states to upgrade their capacities; but the Chinese build-up has intensified it. In part a payoff to the military for its role at Tiananmen Square in 1989, China's current build-up is part and parcel of the regime's major shift since that time away from domestic liberalization and international openness toward repression and irredentism. Today China buys weapons from European states and Israel, but most importantly from Russia. The latest multibillion-dollar deal includes two Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with the much-feared SS-N-22 cruise missile, capable of defeating the Aegis anti-missile defenses of the U.S. Navy and thus sinking American aircraft carriers. This is in addition to the Su-27 fighter aircraft, quiet Kilo-class submarines, and other force-projection and deterrent technologies. In turn, the Asian states are buying or developing their own advanced aircraft, missiles, and submarines--and considering nuclear options. The sort of unintended escalation which started two world wars could arise from any of the conflicts around China's periphery. It nearly did so in March 1996, when China, in a blatant act of intimidation, fired ballistic missiles in the Taiwan Straits. It could arise from a Chinese-Vietnamese confrontation, particularly if the Vietnamese should score some unexpected military successes against the Chinese, as they did in 1979, and if the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), of which they are now a member, should tip in the direction of Hanoi. It could flare up from the smoldering insurgencies among Tibetans, Muslims, or Mongolians living inside China. Chains of alliance or interest, perhaps not clearly understood until the moment of crisis itself, could easily draw in neighboring states--Russia, or India, or Japan--or the United States.

THE IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR.

Nikkei Weekly ’95 (7-3, Lexis)

Mahathir sees Asia developing in three possible ways in future. In his worst-case scenario, Asian countries would go to war against each other, possibly over disputes such as their conflicting claims on the Spratly Islands. China might then declare war on the U.S., leading to full-scale, even nuclear, war.

EXT: CHINA WILL ATTACK SCS

CHINA WILL ATTACK THE SOUTH CHINA SEAS IF THEY DON’T THINK THE U.S. DETERRENT IS CREDIBLE.

SOKOLSKY 00. [Richard, adjunct research associate at the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, C. R. Neu, Senior Economist at RAND and Ph.D. & M.A. in economics, Harvard University, Angel Rabasa, Senior Policy Analyst at RAND, “CHINA’S POTENTIAL MILITARY THREAT TO SOUTHEAST ASIA”, Chapter 3, Role of Southeast Asia in U. S. Strategy Toward China, November 1 2000, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1170/MR1170.ch3.pdf -- DA 7/26/10]

Although the prospects are remote that China will mount conven- tional military attacks against the sea-lanes for the foreseeable future, the possibility cannot be ruled out that hostilities could break out between China and one of the ASEAN states in the South China Sea, perhaps as a result of an incident that spins out of control. In this scenario, China might seek to deter U.S. military involvement by raising the costs of conflict enough to weaken U.S. resolve. The Chinese could calculate, whether correctly or not, that the United States might hesitate to place its carriers at risk, and that China’s growing cruise and ballistic missile capabilities would provide Beijing with a credible “sea denial” option.8 Indeed, territorial disputes in the South China Sea have emerged as the key external security issue facing ASEAN and pose the greatest potential “flashpoint” for conflict in Southeast Asia (see Figure 3.1). Beijing’s quest for improved power projection capabilities, assertive- ness in pressing its maritime and territorial claims in the South China Sea, and track record in using force to defend China’s sovereignty have all stirred apprehensions in Southeast Asia about China’s intentions. Much of the worry reflects an underlying, if often unspoken, fear that Chinese assertiveness foreshadows a China that will become more menacing as its power grows.

IMPACT: TAIWAN

WITHDRAWAL EMBOLDENS CHINA TO ATTACK TAIWAN – THE IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR.

DUNN 07 (Lewis, professor at the U Chicago and former Assistant Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. “Deterrence Today Roles, Challenges and Responses,” IFRI Proliferation Papers, http://www.ifri.org/files/Securite_defense/Deterrence_Today_Dunn_2007.pdf. July 26, 2010.)

Unlike the case with Russia, a U.S.-China nuclear crisis or even confrontation is not inconceivable. Precipitous action by Taiwan could be one trigger; a decision by Chinese officials to act against Taiwan another. In any such confrontation over Taiwan, it is conceivable that Chinese offi-cials could miscalculate the readiness of the United States to support Tai- wan. Chinese officials also could miscalculate their ability to manage the risks of escalation. In that regard, some Chinese experts have stated in- formally that such an asymmetry of stakes would put the United States at a fundamental disadvantage in any China-Taiwan-U.S. crisis. That is, in their view, given asymmetric stakes, the United States would be reluctant to es- calate even after a Chinese limited use of a nuclear weapon.30 The U.S.-China strategic relationship also is characterized by mu-tual uncertainties about each other’s longer-term strategic intentions in both Washington and Beijing. In Washington, the scope and goals of China’s planned nuclear modernization as well as its readiness to play a construc- tive role in dealing with pressing non-proliferation problems remain open questions. Beijing’s decision to test an anti-satellite weapon in January, 2007 clearly reinforced those uncertainties. In Beijing, the scope and goals of U.S. deployment of missile defenses and advanced conventional weap- ons is being closely watched given concerns about a possible U.S. pursuit of a disarming first strike against China’s nuclear arsenal. For their part, China’s experts and officials have signaled that the scope and pace of China’s nuclear modernization is linked to those American deployments. So viewed, China is prepared to do whatever it takes to preserve a limited nuclear deterrent.31 Against this backdrop, the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent has a role to play in lessening the risk of Chinese miscalculation over Taiwan. More broadly, as suggested above, the American presence in Asia and the U.S. nuclear deterrent also is seen by some Japanese and other officials as a reassuring factor in the context of China’s growing military capabilities and political rise in Asia. U.S. officials need to continue to make clear U.S. support for a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. U.S. officials need to be prepared to counter Chinese perceptions that an asymmetry of stakes reduces the risks of China of threats or use of force should any con- frontation over Taiwan occur. The steps set out above to buttress the U.S.- Japan and U.S.-Korea alliance relationship also provide a broader reassur- ance vis-à-vis China.

EXT: CHINA WILL ATTACK TAIWAN

CHINA IS READY TO ATTACK TAIWAN AT ANY MOMENT.

Taipei Times 7/19 (The Taipei Times is the national newspaper for Taiwan. “PRC's preparations to attack Taiwan accelerate: report,” The Taipei Times. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/07/19/2003478290. 2010. July 26, 2010.

Despite repeated displays of goodwill by the government of President Ma Ying-jeou since it came to power in 2008, China’s military preparations for an attack on Taiwan continue to accelerate, a report by the Ministry of National Defense’s intelligence research branch says. The report says China’s military preparedness for an attack on Taiwan has never been relaxed and that if the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) launched a missile attack on Taiwan, it would destroy more than 90 percent of the nation’s political, economic, military and civil infrastructure. It also predicts the number of Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan could reach 2,000 by the end of the year. Although the government’s pro-Beijing policies have been strongly criticized domestically, the ministry’s decision to post the internal research report on its official Web site has raised eyebrows. Lin Cheng-yi a researcher at the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica, said following Ma’s accession to power, China has moved its military exercises from the coastal areas of Fujian Province to other parts of the country and that it no longer uses Hong Kong media to attack Taiwan. Lin said that while this was intended to create a more relaxed atmosphere, in reality China’s military threat is constantly growing. The ministry sees through the smokescreen, continues to keep track of China’s military posture and therefore is remaining true to its responsibilities, Lin said. Although China has reduced the number of military exercises simulating an attack on Taiwan, its activities in the South China Sea and in the waters north and east of Taiwan have been increasing, Lin said. The report said that a June 1993 meeting of China’s Central Military Commission readjusted its strategic goals, unambiguously making Taiwan its main potential adversary. Despite Ma’s rapprochement policies, top PLA leaders continue to emphasize in internal meetings that the use of military force must remain an option, the report says. The PLA’s short and mid-term missile production plans have not been affected by detente in the Taiwan Strait, the report says, adding that the PLA’s missile arsenal targeting Taiwan could reach 1,960 before the end of the year. A large number of recently decommissioned fighter aircraft have been turned into pilotless drone planes to be used together with Harpy anti-radar unmanned aerial vehicles purchased from Israel. These could help China punch holes in Taiwan’s air defense systems and destroy key targets. China is focusing resources on developing satellite technology, the report says, adding that the number of Chinese satellites would surpass 60 before the end of this year. Of these, 14 would be Jianbing and Leidian military surveillance satellites. The total would also include 15 Shentong and Fenghuo military communication satellites, Xinnuo broadcasting satellites and 16 Beidou navigation satellites. These satellites will help the PLA wage integrated warfare and improve weapon accuracy. The strength of the PLA Navy is also increasing. Its regular amphibious abilities have also increased, with transport capa city reaching a full division.

EXT: YES TAIWAN WAR

THE RISK OF TAIWAN NUCLEAR WAR IS REAL – THE US WOULD DEFEND THEM.

O’Hanlin 5 [Michael, Senior fellow of foreign policy for The Financial Times, The Risk of War Over Taiwan is Real, The Financial Times, The Brookings Institute, 5/1, DA 7/25/10]

Nonetheless, Mr Zoellick is more right than wrong. In the absence of strong constraints on future high-technology sales, lifting the European arms embargo on China would be a big mistake. There really is a chance of a Sino-US war over Taiwan, which may ebb and flow month to month but nonetheless remains quite real. And any European decision to lift the embargo could make any war more likely and more costly in lives and assets. The reasons are simple. First, China is serious about being willing to risk war to prevent Taiwan's secession. Second, although many in China as well as Europe cannot quite believe it, the US is just as serious about defending Taiwan. And third, even though American military power remains far superior to that of China, the Chinese do not need to equal US power to make any war over nearby Taiwan very challenging for American forces. Given the right catalyst from Taipei, therefore, US deterrence of China could fail and the world's first true war between nuclear weapons states could ensue.

***IMPACT INTERNALS***

INTERNAL LINK: W/D ( CHINESE AGGRESSION

PLAN SENDS MIXED SIGNALS TO CHINA INVITING ADVENTURISM – EAST ASIA IS THE MOST PROBABLE FLASHPOINT FOR NUCLEAR CONFLICT.

KAPILA 9. [Dr. Subhash, International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst - Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group, “EAST ASIA STRATEGIC CALCULUS: THE CHINA-NORTH KOREA THREAT”, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper No. 3250, 12 June 2009, http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers33%5Cpaper3250.html -- DA 7/26/10]

East Asia in one sense can be termed as the most confictually explosive region, even more than the Middle East. The United States NATO and Israel with their combined military weight can neutralise any challenges to their security. arising in this region. China as an aspiring superpower presently lacks force projection capabilities in the Middle East. In terms of nuclear and missile arsenals one can count on USA, France, Britain and Israel. East Asia contrastingly presents China as an aspiring superpower ready to flex its strategic muscle against the United States most effectively. In East Asia, excluding the United States, nuclear and missiles arsenals are only with China and North Korea. United States allies in East Asia are non-nuclear states relying solely on the US nuclear umbrella The United States is left single handedly to face the combined nuclear and missiles arsenals of China and North Korea. NATO is too far away to assist USA in crisis situations. Against such a strategic backdrop in East Asia the conflictual flash points extend from the Korean Peninsula in the North, to the Taiwan Straits and to the South China Sea territorial disputes in which Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia are pitted against China’s irredentist claims to garner the energy deposits that abound in the South China Sea area. Not to be forgotten is the Chinese dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands. The China factor is common in all these four East Asian conflictual flash points. China went to war with the United States on the Korean Peninsula in 1950. Presently, North Korea as the military adventurist rogue nation ally of China can with its brinkmanship trigger an international conflagration here. In the other conflictual East Asian flash points, China emerges as the main and provocative actor over the Senkaku Islands dispute with Japan, the coercive confrontation with Taiwan and its coercive and strategically arrogant stances on the South China Sea issues. The United States is militarily committed directly to assist Japan and Taiwan against China. However it has no direct military commitment with any countries to defend against China’s military waywardness in the South China Sea area. What makes things more complicated is China’s propensity to use force to settle territorial disputes which creates strategic concerns in countries like Vietnam. China could be made more restrained and its conflictual propensities arrested provided the United States did not give ambivalent signals on China in its policy formulations and strategic outlook.

WITHDRAWAL MAKES CHINESE AGGRESSION INEVITABLE.

KAGAN 10 [Robert, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and professor of history at Georgetown University.“End of Dreams, Return of History,”. Hoover Institution: Stanford University. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6136. May. July 25, 2010.]

Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.

INTERNAL LINK: CHINA IS CRAZY

CHINA IS PREPARED TO GO TO WAR – ONLY CONTAINMENT STOPS THEM.

NYQUIST 5. [JR, regular geopolitical columnist, author, “Recent China Revelations, Financial Sense July 1 -- http://www.financialsense.com/node/328 -- DA 7/26/10]

China's war preparations are deliberate, and the implications should not be passed over lightly. China is a highly secretive country, like all communist countries. The objective of communism is world revolution, the overthrow of global capitalism, the destruction of the free market, the elimination of the international bourgeoisie and the disarming of the United States. We should be puzzled, indeed, if Chinese policy did not follow the communist line (however deviously). Given all this, it is difficult to account for the dismissive attitude of U.S. intelligence experts when regarding Chinese intentions. The China problem is a serious one. "The people ... of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite," said Chairman Mao in 1964. "The people of all continents should unite ... and so form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to defend world peace." In terms of today's peace movement, Mao's sentiments are up-to-date. They are, I think, a founding inspiration. The supposed "death of communism" may have eliminated a few soiled terms, but not the main idea. The label on old hatreds may be changed, but the content remains the same. And because America is asleep, and the market is buzzing with Chinese goods, the U.S. government has turned a blind eye. The truth about China is worse than inconvenient. It is painful. So a special context has been devised for dismissing inconvenient facts. This context is inculcated at graduate schools, think tanks and in government. The context for understanding international affairs must not admit the existence of a coordinated, secretive and dangerous combination of countries motivated to overthrow the United States. In other words, the existence of a "communist bloc" cannot be admitted. And China's role within this bloc - above all - must be rated as a "crackpot notion." And yet, the existence of something identical to the old communist bloc - whatever we choose to call it - is indicated by actions across the board by Russia, the East European satellite countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and China. Some ideas fall from fashion. But truth is always true, fashion or not. U.S. experts failed to connect the dots regarding China's development of a long-range cruise missile, a new attack submarine, new ground-to-air missiles, a new anti-ship missile (for sinking U.S. aircraft carriers) and more. China is preparing for war against the United States, specifically. As absurd as it sounds to the economic optimists who think trade with China guarantees peace, the U.S. and China are bound to collide. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't have a sense of history, doesn't understand communist thinking or the overall policy Beijing has consistently followed since 1949. Communist countries periodically experiment with capitalism, they always seek trade with the West, and they always sink the money and technology they gain thereby into a military buildup. Ultimately, they don't care about the prosperity of their people, the state of the national infrastructure, personal or press freedom.

CHINA IS RAPIDLY EXPANDING THEIR MILITARY – THEY’RE READY FOR WAR.

Maginnis 10 [Robert, retired Army lieutenant colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television and a senior strategist with the U.S. Army, China’s High Seas Aggression, Human Events, 5/20 DA 7/25/10]

China’s aggressive naval behavior accompanies the regime’s growing and seemingly insatiable appetite for natural resources and the movement of its products to sustain a fast-growing economy. That means Beijing must depend on sea routes for transporting goods, which has become a factor shaping its strategic naval behavior. Beijing’s motive for a large navy is more complex than trade. There is a rising tide of Chinese nationalism aimed at Japan and the U.S., China’s long-time naval rivals. A larger navy feeds Chinese national pride at its rivals’ expense and gives Beijing the tools to eventually reunify the “renegade province” of Taiwan by force if necessary. And it helps to control contested island groups off China’s coasts, which form a new outer-defense security belt. This multi-faceted motivation prompts China’s strategic military transformation. The Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines that transformation: “China’s military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its growing regional and global interests.” We can also train and equip regional allies like Japan. But most Asian allies can ill afford to deploy ocean-going ships to defend their vital interests from China’s superpower fleet. Finally, the U.S. ought to engage with China to remove its veil of secrecy about military programs and geopolitical intentions. Security cooperation programs – joint exercises, exchanges – can reduce some tension and maneuver-space agreements can help avoid needless confrontations.

CHINA IS RAPIDLY BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE – CLEAR US POSTURE IS KEY TO DETER.

Tkacik 05 (John, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation “Japanese Islands and Chinas Illicit Claims”, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2005/04/Japans-Islands-and-Chinas-Illicit-Claims, DA 7/25/10

The United States should view with alarm China's increasing aggressiveness in the Western Pacific and its continuing challenges to long-established territorial sea demarcations. The Senkaku seabeds that China now claims have been under the "sovereign" administration of either Japan or the United States for over a century. The United States should make this point firmly and thereby confront China's provocations with clarity instead of ambiguity.

IMPACT BOOSTER: ASIA MOST PROBABLE

ASIAN CONFLICT IS THE MOST PROBABLE SCENARIO FOR GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR.

DIBB 1 [Paul, Prof – Australian National University, Strategic Trends: Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, Winter, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Winter/art2-w01.htm -- DA 7/26/10]

The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe. Unlike in Europe, it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological confrontation still exist across the Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and these two countries are more confrontational than at any time since the early 1970s; in Southeast Asia, Indonesia—which is the world’s fourth-largest country—faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup. The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150 billion a year) than any other part of the world except the United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or five global military spenders. Asia also has more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia’s security is at a crossroads: the region could go in the direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are positive tendencies, including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic view. But there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial, ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation or arms control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional Forum have shown themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises.

TURNS CASE: CONFLICT ESCALATION

TROOP DEPLOYMENT SOLVES CONFLICT ESCALATION – PLAN ENSURES CONFLICT OUTBREAK – TURNS THE CASE.

JOHNSON & KRULAK 9 [Admiral Jay, Chief of Naval Operations & General Charles, Commandant of the Marine Corps “Forward presence essential to American interests,” United States Navy, Reviewed: 17 August 2009, pg. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=274 -- DA 7/25/10]

Also this morning, United States Navy amphibious assault ships carrying 4,400 combat-ready American Marines are forward deployed in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. And at sea in the Mediterranean and in the Persian Gulf are aircraft carrier battle groups with 16,000 Sailors and two air wings of combat ready aircraft. And finally, in the Far East, the United States has permanently deployed a third aircraft carrier battle group and a third amphibious ready group. The vigilant "forward presence" of these forces is vital, but not always as visible to Americans as it is to the rest of the world. Their routine daily efforts don't always make the headlines, but they are vitally important to world peace and stability. Some argue that the forward presence these forces represent is no longer necessary. They argue that forces reacting from the United States are enough to maintain international stability. They further maintain that "brushfires," or outbreaks of regional instability, are insignificant, or incidental at best. And they argue that America can no longer afford the forward presence of these forces on what amounts to a near continuous basis. We would argue just the opposite. Forward deployed U.S. forces, primarily naval expeditionary forces — the Navy-Marine Corps team — are vital to regional stability and to keeping these crises from escalating into full-scale wars. To those who argue that the United States can't afford to have this degree of vigilance anymore, we say: The United States can't afford not to.

***AT: AFF ARGS***

AT: WE’RE A SMALL REDUCTION

SIZE DOESN’T MATTER – PERCEPTION OF THE FORCE IS WHAT IS KEY.

THOMASON 2. [JAMES, Senior Analyst in the Strategy, Forces and Resources Division @ Institute for Defense Analyses Ph.D. in International Relations @ Northwestern “Transforming US Overseas Military Presence: Evidence and Options for DoD Volume I: Main Report,” July Institute for Defense Analyses, IDA Paper P-3707, DA – 7/25/10]

Indeed, the weight of the evidence suggests that the process—more than the magnitude—of change will evoke the most objections. Accordingly, if reductions in these regions are desired, we recommend giving considerable attention to the process of change as it relates to our friends and allies. Fundamental is to consult with an ally as the reduction decision is being made and as it is being implemented, in order to educate foreign experts and allow them to take ownership of the change. The painful memory that remains in Korea (whether or not it is accurate) of the Carter administration’s unilateral reduction is an example of why this is important. At the same time, consultations may provide the US valuable insights as to how to achieve policy goals. For example, one Korean advised, if the US wants to reduce US Forces Korea, the US and RoK should at least try to figure out how to obtain a reciprocal gesture from Kim Jong-Il.

AT: CHINA WON’T GO NUTS

IF ASIA DOUBTS OUR COMMITMENT CHINA WILL FILL IN – RISKS NUCLEAR CONFLICT.

MAURO 7 [Ryan, geopolitical analyst, specializes in tracking and assessing terrorist threats “The Consequences of Withdrawal from Iraq,” Global Politician, 5/7/2007, pg. http://www.globalpolitician.com/22760-foreign-iraq -- DA 7/25/10]

China’s rise in power would become inevitable and accelerated, as our Asian allies doubted our commitments, and would decide on appeasement and entering China’s sphere of influence, rather than relying upon America. The new dynamics in Asia, with allies of America questioning our strength, would result in a nuclear arms race. Japan would have no option but to develop nuclear weapons (although she may do so regardless). Two scenarios would arise: China would dominate the Pacific and America’s status as a superpower would quickly recede, or there would be a region wide nuclear stalemate involving Burma, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and possibly Taiwan and Australia.

AFF: NO TAIWAN WAR

THE US WILL BACKDOWN – NO NUCLEAR EXCHANGE OVER TAIWAN.

Hurd 09 (Dale, senior writer for the CBN news. “Chinese Attack on Taiwan: War for the U.S.?” CBN News. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/March/Chinese-Attack-on-Taiwan-War-for-US-. March 25. July 26, 2010.

Beijing recently authorized the use of force if Taiwan ever declares its independence. America has a defense treaty with Taiwan but honoring that treaty would mean war with China. The Taiwanese armed forces practice defending the island from a Chinese invasion. Those planes are supposed to be dropping Chinese paratroopers on the island. Even though the Taiwanese have never been ruled by the People's Republic of China, the mainland has made absorbing Taiwan a national crusade. And China's new anti-secession law now gives the Chinese military the green light to attack Taiwan if the island pursues formal independence. Taiwan says the new law is tantamount to preparation for war. And that could mean war for the United States, which has pledged to defend Taiwan. Although most analysts say the U.S. would defeat the Chinese in a conventional conflict, the fighting might not remain conventional. "At the end of the day China may gamble that China cares more about Taiwan than the United States does, and if the United States is faced a choice between backing down on Taiwan and seeing Chinese atomic bombs detonating over American cities, that the United States will back down," defense expert John Pike said.

SDI 2010	Duffy Johnson

China DA

1

UNIQUENESS: CONTAINMENT NOW

user

2010-07-24

Cat Duffy

whitman college