War, most likely limited and non-nuclear in the Pacific

War, most likely limited and non-nuclear in the Pacific

By Roilo Golez

Former Philippine National Security Adviser 

My two cents worth, in general terms only, to comment on the President's statements on the Philippine-US military alliance:

 

A war will not necessarily be total war and not a war using ICBMs even if it involves super powers like the US, China and Russia.

The use of ICBM (nuclear) will always be the last resort. For nuclear powers, protagonists will always consider the horrible consequences of a nuclear exchange (MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction).

Per the latest report of Arms Control Association, the following countries have nuclear weapons, with number of warheads indicated:

US: 7,100

Russia: 7,300

France: 300

China: 260

UK: 215

Pakistan: 120

India: 110

Israel: 80

North Korea: 8

Only the US and Russia apparently have the number of warheads that can obliterate countries.

The President mentioned the inability of the US to respond to Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Russia was able to achieve its objective in Crimea because it is the dominant power in that part of the Black Sea (ie., the northern part, while Turkey dominates the southern part). It has a naval base in Sevastopol. Russia has the advantage of proximity. And Ukraine is not part of NATO. The US Navy could not respond massively with a Carrier Battle Group because entrance to the Black Sea is restricted by the Dardanelles. It would have been different, and Russia would have been more prudent, if Ukraine was a NATO member and it was located near US bases, like out in the open in the Mediterranean. Also, Crimea's population is sympathetic to Russia because of ethnicity.

Putin cannot do that in Western Europe, in the Atlantic area, in the Mediterranean and more so in the Pacific even if it has Vladivostok.

IMHO, the Philippines-US MDT is a deterrent to China's use of force in the Philippine occupied Spratly features (PagAsa, Parola, etc.) in the South China Sea, including the LST Sierra Madre. It would be a simple amphibious operation by the PLAN and Marines to seize those features but the MDT states that any attack on the "armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific" of the Philippines could trigger a US "act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes." Not clear, but China cannot just risk triggering such counter action however vague it may be. 

Without the MDT deterrent, it would just be a walk over just like what China did in the Paracels in the 70s.

Tha, IMHO, answers the President's questions: "Do you really think we need it? If there is a war? If we engage in skirmishes, do you think we really need America?"

So we are talking of various stages of conflict, from low intensity conflict to even an air sea battle using conventional weapons, to blockades, where the MDT will be necessary as a deterrent. The highly unlikely total thermonuclear war, the unthinkable, is something else. 

With only 260 warheads, against 7,100 of America plus its allies, China would not even think of a nuclear exchange.

My two cents worth.

The President is quoted to have said here ( I saw the video):

"I do not mean to cancel or abrogate the military alliances but let me ask you: Do you really think we need it? If there is a war? If we engage in skirmishes, do you think we really need America?"  

 

"Do we need China and Russia -- for that matter, do we need somebody? If they fight, if they launch ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) or Poseidon (either a type of US military aircraft or a discontinued US ballistic missile), there will be no more American aid to talk of. There will no more be a country strong enough to rule."

 

"When that time comes, we won’t need anything but a priest. If you want, you can recite the mi ultimo adios ."

 

Duterte said US should watch its "arrogance" as Russian President Vladimir Putin gets what he wants.

 

"Let’s not make any mistake. If he wants something, he will really get it. He wanted Crimea and he simply went there to occupy it. America was not able to do anything," the president said.

 

My two cents worth, in general terms only, to comment on the President's statements on the Philippine-US military alliance:

A war will not necessarily be total war and not a war using ICBMs even if it involves super powers like the US, China and Russia.

The use of ICBM (nuclear) will always be the last resort. For nuclear powers, protagonists will always consider the horrible consequences of a nuclear exchange (MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction).

Per the latest report of Arms Control Association, the following countries have nuclear weapons, with number of warheads indicated:

US: 7,100

Russia: 7,300

France: 300

China: 260

UK: 215

Pakistan: 120

India: 110

Israel: 80

North Korea: 8

Only the US and Russia apparently have the number of warheads that can obliterate countries.

The President mentioned the inability of the US to respond to Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Russia was able to achieve its objective in Crimea because it is the dominant power in that part of the Black Sea (ie., the northern part, while Turkey dominates the southern part). It has a naval base in Sevastopol. Russia has the advantage of proximity. And Ukraine is not part of NATO. The US Navy could not respond massively with a Carrier Battle Group because entrance to the Black Sea is restricted by the Dardanelles. It would have been different, and Russia would have been more prudent, if Ukraine was a NATO member and it was located near US bases, like out in the open in the Mediterranean. Also, Crimea's population is sympathetic to Russia because of ethnicity.

Putin cannot do that in Western Europe, in the Atlantic area, in the Mediterranean and more so in the Pacific even if it has Vladivostok.

IMHO, the Philippines-US MDT is a deterrent to China's use of force in the Philippine occupied Spratly features (PagAsa, Parola, etc.) in the South China Sea, including the LST Sierra Madre. It would be a simple amphibious operation by the PLAN and Marines to seize those features but the MDT states that any attack on the "armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific" of the Philippines could trigger a US "act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes." Not clear, but China cannot just risk triggering such counter action however vague it may be. 

Without the MDT deterrent, it would just be a walk over just like what China did in the Paracels in the 70s.

Tha, IMHO, answers the President's questions: "Do you really think we need it? If there is a war? If we engage in skirmishes, do you think we really need America?"

So we are talking of various stages of conflict, from low intensity conflict to even an air sea battle using conventional weapons, to blockades, where the MDT will be necessary as a deterrent. The highly unlikely total thermonuclear war, the unthinkable, is something else. 

With only 260 warheads, against 7,100 of America plus its allies, China would not even think of a nuclear exchange.

My two cents worth.