News

Conversely, Japan already produces variants of some US systems under license or joint production agreements: Fuji’s UH-1J Huey helicopter, for example, or the F-16 derivative F-2 fighter. Overall, said Bryan Clark, a former aide to the Chief of Naval Operations now with the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments, “Japan imports US technology in key areas such as undersea warfare, electronic warfare, stealth, and strike weapons, rather than the other way around.” Instead, the practical impact of the agreement — at least in the near term — is that it eases the sale of high-tech Japanese components for US weapons systems. “We don’t normally buy whole platforms from other countries, but some foreign components and mission systems such as weapons, sensors, jammer pods, etc. are more effective than current US capabilities,” said Clark. “In the past, RDPs have mostly increased the purchases of component parts from foreign suppliers for larger systems that are built by US companies.”..

The NATO playbook can help keep South Korea and Japan from pursuing bombs of their own. In the shadow of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke recently about the danger of nuclear proliferation and the dream of a world without nuclear weapons.

That's a message to China, which lays claim to almost all of the resource rich waters as its territory, said Bryan Clark, retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "Its clearly a show of force," Clark said. "The U.S. is trying to push back on this notion that it's not involved in an area of the world where another major power has moved in to set up shop."

Tom Mahnken, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank, praised Carter's emphasis on developing partnerships. "Secretary Carter was right to emphasize multilateral approaches in the Asia-Pacific region.

To date, however, the US has avoided such direct challenges. Indeed, argued Bryan Clark of the Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments, the American approach has been remarkably indirect. “The US can be seen as playing a ‘long game’ in which it improves relations with and its military posture in countries on China’s Southeast Asian periphery and to reduce China’s influence, while in the near term giving in on China’s efforts in the South China Sea proper,” Clark said in an email (emphasis added). What has this tack achieved since the last Shangri-La? The Philippines has hosted Air Force A-10 attack planes. Singapore is hosting Navy P-8 patrol aircraft. Vietnam agreed to host a US Army stockpile of humanitarian supplies, and the US lifted restrictions on arms sales to Hanoi. All this “goes along with this idea of not contesting the South China Sea islands directly, but instead building more lasting relations and military posture along the periphery,” Clark said. “If properly equipped, forces in Vietnam and the Philippines could hold China’s island facilities at risk and negate some of the advantage they provide China.” “That may work,” Clark continued, “but only if the increasing Chinese militarization of the South China Sea does not in the end convince its neighbors that the US will not be able to support them militarily….. Eventually, the U.S. will have to contest China’s effort to make the South China Sea a ‘Chinese lake.'”

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is pleased to welcome Dr. Peter Haynes to its team of experts focused on the evolution of warfare and its implications for U.S. strategy and the Department of Defense budget.