Off Shore Control

As Air Sea Battle gets debated, the designer of Off Shore Control makes another case

ASB proponents want our allies to believe that new technology will make Douhet’s elusive goal—airpower defeating an enemy—a reality.

It is clear a critical element of OC is denying the Chinese use of the waters inside the first Island chain. We need not sustain dominance for its own sake, or in irrelevant locations. OC also states Great Satan will defend those allies in the first island chain who choose to join us. So OC and ASB aspire to the same goals with one major exception. OC does not seek to strike tactical targets inside China. Rather OC will apply pressure to the strategic target of China’s economy.

Since the Communist Party’s legitimacy is based on economic growth, major reductions in China’s imports and exports will create major pressure for a solution. Worse, from China’s point of view, is that U.S. control of the seas outside the first island chain means the world economy will begin to rebuild.

 The longer China maintains the conflict, the harder it will be to recover lost trade relationships. It is hard to see how Chinese leaders will simply ignore this kind of economic damage.

The key discussion we must have is about a strategy that preserves our interests in the unlikely event of a conflict with China. It must reassure our friends, stabilize the region—particularly in times of crisis—and allow Great Satan to respond effectively if conflict starts. Such a discussion must include ends, ways and means, both in war and peace. It should be free of assertions that we can achieve a difficult task because we wish to, but delve into the force structure, training, equipment, and budgetary factors that are the basis for a strategy.

Pic - "Off Shore Control"