作者/Author(s): Hal Brands and Zack Cooper
網站來源/Source: Center for Strategic and International Studies
日期/Date: 03/12/2024
美國的新軍事戰略有六大問題需要折衷取捨。
- 致命性或持久戰：中國的火箭飛彈可以摧毀射程內的一些美國軍事基地，這種做法對中國而言成本效益較高，因此美國需要分散兵力以求生存。然而，一旦兵力分散，美國攻擊中國的打擊能力就會下降。此外，過毒依賴大型武器平台、基地或編隊的軍種也將面臨後勤挑戰，作戰能力下降。
- 隱藏或暴露：如果美國決定以更小型和更分散的單位進行攻擊，可能會削弱它們的嚇阻力，中國不會怕。暴露其能力與位置可能會使嚇阻變得更可信，但也會給予中國修正弱點的機會，甚至也會暴露美國的行動地點，加劇局勢緊張。
- 保持距離或近距離對峙： 如果美國選擇駐紮在第一島鏈附近，其軍隊很容易受到攻擊。然而，如果美國駐紮在更遠的地方，中國就更容易迫使台灣屈服。美國可以部署一支攻擊性不強的部隊，主要負責削弱中國的攻擊，安撫盟友，確保後續部隊能跟進支援。然而，這隻部隊可能會傷亡慘重。
- 行動速度或盟友內部政治問題： 美國持續擴大其在盟國的軍事足跡，戰時可能會使用民用設施，盟國平民將面臨危險。日本就有些居民抗議日本自衛隊增加駐軍，這些人可能也會反對美國駐軍。然而，如果美國不加大力度，將損害其維護西太平洋和平的信譽。
- 主權或效率： 聯盟和夥伴關係在美國的嚇阻戰略中至關重要。但是有一些盟國可能不願完全支持美國的戰略。美國可以讓盟國建立自己的優勢能力，專注於特定行動，美國去執行複雜的任務。不過，如果美國沒有提出可靠堅實的保證，這些合作夥伴不一定會不願意配合。
- 灰色地帶或高強度衝突：美軍需要頻繁的干預才能遏制中國灰色地帶侵略，但這可能會讓部隊疲於奔命。美國更願意專注於遏制高強度衝突，但其盟友仍將受到北京推移現狀的「切香腸」影響。
Summary:
The US's new military strategy has questions that lead to difficult trade-offs.
- Lethality or durability: Since Chinese rockets could destroy some US military bases within their range and the cost-exchange ratio favors China, the US would need to disperse its force to survive. However, once the force is scattered, it would limit the ability to generate striking power required to defeat a Chinese attack. Further, branches that rely on large platforms, bases, or formations would face logistical challenges, undermining combat ability.
- Conceal or reveal: If the US decides to attack with smaller and dispersed units, it may undermine their deterrent value because China may not see it as harmful. Revealing its capabilities may make deterrence credible, but it may allow China to mend its vulnerabilities, expose the US operating locations, or escalate tensions.
- Close-in of standoff: If the US chooses to station nearer to the first island chain, its military may be vulnerable to attacks. However, if the US positions itself further, it would be easier for China to force Taiwan to capitulate. The US could deploy a blunting force that weakens Chinese attacks, reassures allies, and protects follow-up standoff forces. Yet, the blunting force may face heavy casualties.
- Speed or sustainability: Since the US is expanding its military footprints in ally countries, it may use civilian facilities, exposing ally civilians to dangers. In Japan, some communities protested the increasing Japanese Self-Defense Force presence and may oppose the US presence also. Yet, if the US did not push hard, it would undermine its credibility in protecting peace in the Western Pacific.
- Sovereignty or efficiency: Alliances and partnerships are critical to the US deterrence strategy. Yet, some allies may be reluctant to commit fully to the US strategy. The US could allow allies to build their niche capabilities and focus on specific operations while leaving the US to do complicated missions. Still, some partners may be reluctant without solid US assurances.
- Gray zone or high intensity: Deterring gray zone aggression requires frequent interventions that may cause fatigue to the US forces. The US prefers to focus on deterring high-intensity conflicts, but its allies will still suffer from Beijing's salami-slicing tactics that shift the status quo.