Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Transformation and Implications for the Department of Defense

James C. Mulvenon, Murray Scot Tanner, Michael S. Chase, David R. Frelinger, David C. Gompert, Martin C. Libicki, Kevin L. Pollpeter

ResearchPublished Mar 7, 2006

Over the past decade, Chinese military strategists have keenly observed changes in U.S. national strategy and military transformation. The acceleration of its own military modernization suggests that China is not dissuaded by U.S. military prowess but instead is driven by a range of strategic and military motivations to keep pace. This report examines the constraints, facilitators, and potential options for Chinese responses to U.S. transformation efforts, especially with respect to whether Taiwan moves toward or away from formal independence. The authors focus on four areas of counter-transformation options that China may pursue (which most likely would include all or portions of each strategy): Conventional Modernization “Plus”; Subversion, Sabotage, and Information Operations; Missile-Centric Strategies; and Chinese Network-Centric Warfare. The path China takes will depend on its key national security goals and the political and economic context within which these goals are pursued. That said, the authors offer possible U.S. counterresponses to such courses of action (e.g., planning defensive measures, augmentation of network-centric platforms) and emphasize that the ultimate “victor” of transformation will be that nation with the best combination of surprise, error control, fortune, and highly trained people.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
186 pages
List Price
$24.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2006
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 186
  • Paperback Price: $24.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 978-0-8330-3768-8
  • Document Number: MG-340-OSD

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Mulvenon, James C., Murray Scot Tanner, Michael S. Chase, David R. Frelinger, David C. Gompert, Martin C. Libicki, and Kevin L. Pollpeter, Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Transformation and Implications for the Department of Defense, RAND Corporation, MG-340-OSD, 2006. As of September 11, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG340.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Mulvenon, James C., Murray Scot Tanner, Michael S. Chase, David R. Frelinger, David C. Gompert, Martin C. Libicki, and Kevin L. Pollpeter, Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Transformation and Implications for the Department of Defense. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006. https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG340.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

The research described in this report was prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The research was conducted in the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the OSD, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Department of the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This publication is part of the RAND monograph series. RAND monographs were products of RAND from 2003 to 2011 that presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs were subjected to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.