Thursday, September 01, 2011

Project 2049 with two new reports

The Project 2049 Institute released its newest report entitled Asian Alliances in the 21st Century. The report is authored by Dan Blumenthal (AEI) with Randall Schriver (P2049), Mark Stokes (P2049), L.C. Russell Hsiao (P2049) and Michael Mazza (AEI).

Asian Alliances in the 21st Century examines the global geopolitical shift toward Asia and Washington’s post-World War II Asia policy. The report provides a sobering assessment of the challenges ahead for the region’s future as it becomes the epicenter of geopolitical activity and the budding U.S.-China security rivalry reshapes the region’s future.

The authors argue that “China’s military modernization is rendering the American post-World War II military strategy in Asia obsolete. That strategy took a minimalist view of allies … Yet Japan and South Korea, the best examples of the traditional American approach, are now regional powers that want and could do more to defend themselves and contribute to regional security. Both Tokyo and Seoul need the power and mindset to act more independently for their own defense, while enjoying the assurance that the United States will provide the ultimate deterrent. Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea should form a trilateral alliance with the United States as the building block of a new Asian alliance network.” (p. 33)

Asian Alliances in the 21st Century provides an in-depth look at the relationship between security strategy and the alliance system; how the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) challenges U.S. military strategy; principles of alliance cohesion; U.S. defense-industrial policy; and potential flashpoints in the region. 


The Project 2049 Institute is pleased to announce the release of a new report entitled Air Power Trends in Northeast Asia: Implications for Japan and the U.S.-Japan Alliance. The report is co-authored by Oriana Skylar Mastro (Princeton) and Mark Stokes (P2049).<

Air Power Trends in Northeast Asia critically analyzes the changing balance of air power in the region, which is creating an increasingly uncertain strategic environment for Japan. China’s growing military might, coupled by Russia’s airpower modernization and North Korea’s bellicose actions are tilting the scale of regional aerospace power. This in-depth study assesses the steps that Japan should take to bolster its air power stance and how the United States can contribute to these efforts.

The authors argue that “Modernizing the JASDF is only one step that Japan needs to take to meet the challenges of a more capable PLAAF. Japan may also encourage China to engage in confidence building measures (CBMs), which will reduce the likelihood of a conflict generally and over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in particular.” Furthermore, “… Japan is faced with the classic procurement dilemma on speed versus quality. The F-35 appears to be the optimal counter air platform, and primary option under consideration with avionics and radar that are more advanced than the F-22. Such advantages may be crucial in light of Chinese developments in stealth, UAVs, and electronic warfare.” (p. 33)

If you have any questions about the report, please do not hesitate to contact us via e-mail:
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.


arkhangelsk said...

The 2nd report: Skimmed through it. The biggest thing in terms of solid recommendations is that Japan should buy F-35s and selection of evidence is clearly biased towards that direction - the most prominent examples being the complete skipping over of Carlo's "warm" thoughts about the F-35 (while his thoughts on the F/A-18 are quoted albeit in very soft-soaped form), and also the rather optimistic price and delivery time quotes when skeptics are already figuring the plane would bust $120 million and be delivered to the US in 2016-2018 (and thus Japan would be very much later down the queue).

What I really wanted to see are what recommendations this report can make if the JSF is also not suitable.

Grammar Nazi said...

Entitled does not mean the same thing as titled!

Michael Turton said...

Grammar Nazi, for future reference,
1. To give a title to; entitle.

Now go have another BAR beer and a cig. See ya soon, I hope.

Philip L said...

Michael, although strickly speaking you are entitled to your put down of Grammar Nazi, still your use of 'entitle' when 'title' will do will surely raise eyebrows.

Other English words that fall into this catagory include: inflammable (flammable), irregardless (regardless), debone (bone), previsualize (visualize). That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many more.

Michael Turton said...

I can't believe we're having this discussion. Let me point out two things (1) variation is good. Sometimes entitle and sometimes title. it's really good style to avoid repetition. (2) I didn't write that blurb for the piece; Project 2049 did.