Browse > Home / Around The World / Could It Be That China Is Developing An Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile? And Would The U.S. Tolerate It?

Could It Be That China Is Developing An Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile? And Would The U.S. Tolerate It?

June 28, 2009

Could It Be That China Is Developing An Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile? And Would The U.S. Tolerate It?Martin McCauley writes from the United States: Taiwan is of critical strategic importance to the People’s Republic of China. Geographically it blocks access to the western Pacific. Hence, the Middle Kingdom will do everything in its power to prevent the island becoming an independent state. Its great weakness at present is that the United States navy has the power to intervene if an armed conflict broke out between Beijing and Taipei.There is no way the Chinese navy, at present, could outgun the U.S. navy. That is why the goal of Chinese strategic planners is to possess a system that could deter the U.S. from intervening. It might well be that the Chinese are actually building such a system as you read this. Beijing, it appears is developing a land based anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBN). This will be a novel weapon as no power at present possesses one.
Ideally the missile would have a range of over 1,500km which means that it can cover Taiwan and parts of the western Pacific.

For several decades the U.S. navy had been deploying aircraft carriers to project power in the world’s oceans. During the 1995-96 Chinese missile tests and naval exercises in the Taiwan Strait, the US sent two aircraft carriers to the region. Beijing could not counter the move. The ASBN is designed to prevent a repeat of such a scenario.

If operational, the ASBN, fired from mobile platforms which would be difficult to hit, would give China a capability to deny access to areas well beyond the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone which it now claims.
The U.S. does not have an ASBN. It had the capability to develop one but abandoned this research in the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1988.
The Second Artillery, China’s strategic rocket forces (both nuclear and conventional), would almost certainly have operational control of ASBNs. The problem is that a decision to fire the ASBNs could escalate a conflict with the U.S. instead of deterring one. Some sources propose that ASBNs should only be used as a warning device. As such it could only be a conventional weapon. However this poses a major problem. How is the U.S. to determine whether the ASBNs were fired as a warning or were perhaps a near miss?

Chinese writing on naval affairs make clear that the country’s leadership has no intention of going to war with the United States. The objective of building up naval power is to have a capability of detering the U.S. Beijing wants good relations with Washington because its primary goal now is the economic development of the country. If China acquires an ASBN arsenal, the hope would be that it would prevent the U.S. from intervening in regions vital to the Middle Kingdom’s strategic interests. The opposite may turn out to be true. ASBNs could escalate tension between the two powers.

China is now faced with a major dilemma: should it add ASBNs to its arsenal? What will the U.S do in such an eventuality? Will Washington regard it as an unfriendly act and beef up Taiwan’s defences? Will the U.S. perceive it as the first step in a chain of events with the objective of restricting American access to East and South East Asia? These are all questions that the Chinese leadership has to answer and make the right decision.

– End –

Related posts:

  1. Forget Iran With It’s Non-Existent Nukes. China Has Some Serious Nuclear Muscle To Flex

    Martin McCauley writes: While the world is pre-occupied with the supposed nuclear threat from Iran, it is China’s growing nuclear arsenal that should be...

  2. China Developing New Cruise Missiles. The Implications For The US Can Be Disastrous

    Martin McCauley writes: The United States have had ample opportunities to deploy and test new weapons during the conflicts in the Gulf, in the...

  3. President Obama Was Right To Scrap The Anti-Missile Shield In Europe

    Adam Lovejoy writes: U.S. President, Barack Obama, was absolutely right to scrap the anti-missile shield, the European based Star Wars system, that was intended for...

  4. China Now Has An Independent Naval Force to Combat Somali Pirates

    Martin McCauley writes: A second Chinese naval task force has arrived in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia to combat the...

  5. Is Chinese Naval Doctrine Based On The Theories Of Admiral Mahan?

    Martin McCauley writes from the United States: Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) was one of the greatest theorists of naval power. He conducted a...

Category: Around The World  · 3 Comments »
Tags: , , ,

3 Responses to “Could It Be That China Is Developing An Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile? And Would The U.S. Tolerate It?”

  1. Graham Rankin on June 28th, 2009 3:11 pm

    The ASBN is part of a range of weapons on China’s fabled ‘Taiwan Shopping List.’ It’s the package overall that’s intimidating to the US. The anti-satellite system tested two years ago is designed to take out the GPS system, run by the USAF but which will collapse if three or more satellites go down. There’s also the Anti-Spy Satellite laser system, successfully tested last year, and the anti-submarine submarine programme! Then there’s the financial lever of several $trillion in dollars and bonds, that if dumped would hurt both sides, but the threat of wrecking the US economy might matter more to a democracy than to China. Last, but not least, is the multi-billion cyber-warfare project to infiltrate Western computers at every level, including electricity distribution. I’m not paranoid myself, but if I worked for the CIA in Taiwan I’d be on sick leave for hyper-tension!

  2. James Wong on June 6th, 2010 6:02 am

    Why shdnt the Chines build anti ship missile.?It’s for defence .The US carriers are for offence and power projection.
    The pentagon must learn to accept that the the China of 2010 is not the China of 1950s to the 90s when two US ac intimidated them. Those days are gone repeat gone for good.
    The PLA aint looking for a fight. The us says it does not support Taiwan independence.You never know. History is full of instances of treachery.That is why the PLA is modernising so that the taiwanese will think twice/thrice/x times before declaring independence.
    I believ a time will come when taiwan will have to re unite with China.Not now or y years.in the yeras to come the PLA will become stronger so taht in a fight the damage to the US will not be worth defending Taiwan. It has not come as yet.Even if the US were to upgrade its weapons it wont be able to prevent the PLA from inflicting unacceptable l damage on the US. Lest I forget the US would have won .The question is is it worth the price.
    I refer to kennedy 1961. The US will pay any price to defend freedom. No it is to attack.

  3. Bryan Ling Tse kwang on July 11th, 2010 4:34 am

    So will the US tolerate the PLA building anti ship weapons targetting US carriers?
    The Chinese have been living under the threat of nuclear destruction by US nw since 1949 .Hark back to the opium era and you will know how the Chinese feel.Even now US missiles are primed on 15 minute alert status to attack Red China,sorry,China.
    This a game. If the carriers are poised to attack,shdnt the Chinese have the means to deter /destroy them?If the roles were reversed,what would the US do?It would do the same thing.Similarly what would the Pentagon do if PLA destroyers are off LA?Deter or destroy them even if it means ww3.
    Btw this is 2010 and not 1945 up to 2005. when the uS could do anything it wanted.All good things must come to an end. If the US really want the good times to go on indefinitely,now is a good time to perpetuate its supremacy by unleashing a war against China.Otherwise with the march of time the price for

    defeating China will go up. It can only go up to a point where the US will find it not worth defending Taiwan.Believe me Taiwan will go back to China ultimately.
    Oh then China will be a bigger threat to to Asia if not the world.Then the pentagon with the connivance of the neo cons will clamour for more money to build up US forces to defend America ie attack other countries which can rolled over.Yes the US can prevail over China but at enormous risk and price.
    And by the way US turf must not be touched if the US were to attack China. Hence the missile shield which is gimmick. Oh we have to stop anuclear attack on US soil.the best way is not to unleash a US attack on others using nw.Then the other guy will hit back with nw even if the US initiates the attack.
    Incidentally, if the US were to conventional means to destroys China’ nw,don’t bet on the PLA not resorting to nw. I repeat the way to avoid a n attack on US is for the Pentagon not to use nw.You will reap what you sow.

Would you like to add a comment?