美國軍方的外圍智庫---Rand Corporation---的研究報告: War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable (美中戰爭)

[david chou]

美國軍方的外圍智庫---Rand Corporation---的研究報告: War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable (美中戰爭)

一

為了幫助不習慣閱讀英文文件或報告的鄉親們了解蘭德公司於2016年完成、含蓋2015-2025年的美中情勢的一份報告(標題是: War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable，這份報告在2016年7月份被公開:http://www.rand.org/…/researc…/RR1100/RR1140/RAND_RR1140.pdf)，台灣建州運動先請大家來讀在台灣發行的一份匪報的一篇報導。

「中美若開戰，日本將起關鍵作用」
2016年09月20日 04:10 記者潘維庭／綜合報導
旺報

//----美國智庫蘭德公司7月底公布的《與中國開戰》研究報告，近2個月來影響仍餘波蕩漾。日本《產經新聞》17日報導指出，這份報告已經在華盛頓戰略人士中引起巨大迴響。對於報導稱日本將在這場戰爭中起到「決定性作用」，《產經新聞》呼籲稱：「日方應當提早認識到這一點。」

報導指出，在報告出台前，日本的多數意見對「美中會爆發戰爭的觀點態度消極」，但對於日本來說，更讓人擔憂的情況是報告中提及了日本在美中戰爭中的作用，認為日本在行動中將發揮決定性的重要作用。

日美軍基地恐被攻擊

報導表示，如果中國與美國爆發大規模戰爭，日本國內的美軍基地遭受攻擊的可能性很高，屆時日本將自動加入戰爭。

報導並稱，雖然中國軍隊的戰鬥力到2025年將有所提高，但日本的潛艇、水面艦艇、戰鬥機、飛彈、情報監視真誠能力也將得到提升，並對美軍強化綜合作戰能力提高幫助。

在蘭德公司的報告稱，若中美開戰，釣魚台海域是可能的衝突地域，並列舉2種造成事態升級的可能性。一是當日本針對中國的威脅攻勢採取防衛行動之際，兩國部隊發生事故性衝突，戰事擴大；二是中國誤以為美國不會軍事介入釣魚台衝突而攻擊日方，結果招致美軍干預。

2025年前存戰爭危險

日本《產經新聞》17日報導，這份報告長達120頁，由美國陸軍委託智庫蘭德公司撰寫，今年7月底公布。報告引用龐大數據，獲得結論為：2025年前，中美之間存在爆發戰爭的危險。報導認為「應正視這被盟國美國認真思考的現實」。

報告列舉導致中美衝突的幾個可能性：中日因釣魚台及其附屬島嶼爆發衝突、中方在南海對他國施壓、專屬經濟區發生海空衝突等。日媒直指，中日因釣魚台及其附屬島嶼爆發衝突，是最易導致中美戰爭的誘因之一。//

二

蘭德公司的報告第八頁列舉了導致美中戰爭的幾個可能原因:
• Sino-Japanese skirmishing over disputed territory in the East
China Sea, where the United States has said its defense treaty
with Japan applies
• Chinese harassment to press its territorial claims in (and to)
the South China Sea—against the Philippines or Vietnam, for
example—in the face of U.S. insistence on peaceful dispute resolution and freedom of the seas
• uncoordinated military interventions by Chinese, South Korean,
or U.S. forces in the event of a collapse of North Korea
• Chinese threat or use of force to intimidate or seize Taiwan(中國威脅或使用武力來威嚇或奪佔台灣)
• an incident at sea, such as the downing of an aircraft, owing to
forces operating in close proximity, perhaps in EEZ waters claimed
as sovereign by China but as commons by the United States.

三

蘭德公司的報告第七十頁與第七十一頁建議美國政府要為一場美中戰爭進行如下的準備:

• Improving the ability to sustain severely intense military operations:
The Department of Defense should analyze critical “consumables”
(weapons and provisions) that could run out and tip
the balance in the event a protracted war.
• Shifting toward more-survivable platforms: The Pentagon should
not increase stocks of vulnerable platforms (surface ships and
manned aircraft) that are expected to take significant losses,
because of China’s A2AD. Rather, the Pentagon should undertake
a purposeful long-term program to substitute more-survivable systems,
at least for this region.
• Improving U.S. and allied warfighting capabilities: In addition
to improve survivability, U.S. and allied forces should exploit
Findings, Recommendations, and Concluding Observations 71
more strategically the technologies that China is exploiting in
its A2AD, including targeting, theater-range missiles, advanced
extend-range air defense, and submarines.
• Conducting contingency planning with key allies: Japan is the
most important but also the most controversial ally; however,
existing low-profile U.S.-Japanese military planning is an established
framework (well known to the Chinese) that could begin to
touch on issues regarding low-probability and high-consequence
conflict with China. Similar planning with other East Asia allies
is encouraged. NATO planning should be stretched in the direction
of how European allies would respond to a Russian threat if
the United States were in a major war with China. Again, this is
a delicate matter and best done with no fanfare. [要與關鍵盟國進行作戰計劃與演習，特別是日本。]
• Undertaking measures to mitigate the interruption of critical
products from China: Here again, sound judgment must prevail.
For the United States to slash Chinese imports in the off chance
of a war would be to harm its own economy in anticipation of
an unlikely event, which, though economically painful, would
not be catastrophic. It would suffice for the United States government
to identify alternative domestic and foreign sources of only
the most critical products and parts made in China. This could
include stockpiling especially vital materials.
• Developing options to deny China access to war-critical commodities
and technologies in the event of war: Although a general
U.S. blockade would not be needed to harm the Chinese economy,
the United States could take measures that would make it
difficult for China to sustain long and severe combat. Cutting off
Chinese access to seaborne supplies of oil and liquefied natural
gas would have the most dramatic effect. Although Russia would
probably be eager and able to supply China with military hardware
during a war, Chinese access to more-sophisticated Western
systems could be stopped.
蘭德公司的報告第七十二頁也建議委託它進行研究的美國陸軍要進行如下的準備:
• Invest in land-based A2AD capabilities (e.g., mobile theater-range
missiles and advanced air defenses) to contribute to high Chinese
military losses.
• Encourage and enable East Asian partners to mount strong
defense, including missiles and air defense.
• Improve interoperability with partners, especially Japan. [要改善與盟國及安全夥伴的協同作戰，特別是日本。]
• Contribute to the expansion and deepening of Sino-U.S. militaryto-military
understanding and cooperation to reduce dangers of
misperception and miscalculation.

四

由於美中戰爭的破壞力太大，所以這份報告寫得太保守，且一些立論與假定可能也稍嫌太過於理性，因而容易受到挑戰，這是可以理解的。例如，報告認為，美中戰爭的戰場(除了太空戰場、電子戰場與網路空間戰場之外)將會局限在西太平洋，而雙方不會動用陸軍與核武，這類的假定、想定與認知可能是有問題的，甚至是危險的。

這份報告認為，美中戰爭沒有贏家，不過，台灣建州運動認為，既然有美中戰爭的想定，而且戰爭必不可免[請讓我們提醒美國的決策者與戰略家: 中國人是企圖要打倒美國秩序與領導權、企圖要將美國勢力逐出亞太的擴張主義者，且中國老百姓長期被洗腦，因而普遍具有好戰性格，同時認為中國可以打贏這一場戰爭]，在無法避免美中戰爭的公算下，美國必須有打贏這場戰爭的全面準備以及政治意志，且必須設定如下的目標:

第一: 打完這場戰爭後，美國可以快速與順利地重建，繼續成為「自由國際秩序」的guardian與indispensable nation(不可或缺的國家)，不會留下國際權力與秩序的真空。

第二: 美國、日本、印度與澳洲繼續成為「印太戰區」和平與穩定的護持者。

第三: 美國、NATO與歐盟繼續成為歐洲秩序與和平的護持者。

第四: 中國人成功地被「美國價值」馴化與改造，中國成為美國所締造的「自由國際秩序」的跟隨者。

第五: 台灣人民的自決權被尊重，台灣人民透過公投加入美國(或獨立建國)。

最後我們要說: 我們不鼓勵也不樂見這場戰爭，雖然我們認為這場戰爭必不可免，因為今天的中國就是昔日的納粹德國與日本帝國，它一定會挑起戰爭。台灣人無法阻止這場戰爭，我們只能準備接受戰爭的洗禮，並設法在這場戰爭中獲勝與存活。

台灣建州運動發起人周威霖
David C. Chou
Founder, Formosa Statehood Movement
(an organization devoted in current stage to making Taiwan a territorial commonwealth of the United States)