Preliminary Understanding of the Global Strategic Arms Race Posture

Preliminary Understanding of the Global Strategic Arms Race Posture

By Liu Chong (CPAPD Council Member), Guo Xiaobing, Sun Bo, Deng Menjia

China Institutes for Contemporary International Relations

In the year 2018, the United States adjusted its national defense strategy dictated by the major power competition, made tremendous efforts in areas such as nuclear, missile defense, outer space, artificial intelligence military applications, etc., disclosed withdrawal from the INF Treaty, tried vigorously to reshape the absolute superiority, thus, having seriously impacted the strategic stability of major countries and the international arms control process. Russia gave tit for tat response, stepping up efforts to modernize its nuclear forces, actively deploying cutting-edge military technology, releasing a variety of new strategic weapons, and sending out deterrence signals. The wrestling nuclear forces and the development of emerging strategic technologies are intertwined, the pattern of global strategic forces is becoming more complex and a new round of strategic arms race is showing a posture of a comeback

I. The U.S. reemphasis on major-power competition intensifies the arms race

Since the Trump Administration released the new version of the U.S. National Security Strategy at the end of 2017, the U.S. Government, Congress and Military have successively released multiple reports highlighting the major power competition, sending out the signals of rebuilding the U.S. military cutting-edge superiority, trying one way or another to interrupt technical progress of the counterparts, and showing a posture of restarting the strategic arms race.

(1)The United States has reclassified China and Russia, especially China, as the major adversaries.

After taking office, the Trump Administration in the U.S. National Security Strategy report and the U.S. National Defense Strategy report identifies China and Russia as major adversaries, defines China and Russia as "revisionist powers", and states that "the era of great power competition is back" in the Nuclear Posture Review report. The U.S. National Security Strategy report claims that over the past two decades the United States engages with its competitors and integrates them into international institutions and global trade and makes them benign participants and reliable partner, which is largely wrong. The report argues that China and Russia, as "revisionist powers," are the main threats to U.S. prosperity and security, "China and Russia intend to shape a world that runs counter to American values and interests. China is trying to replace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region by expanding the sphere of influence of its state-dominated economic model, rewrite the regional order in its favor; Russia is trying to restore its great-power status, and establishing a sphere of influence near its borders.1

The U.S. National Defense Strategy report states that the strategic competition between nations rather than terrorism is the priority now the U.S. home security faces, and focus on the long-term strategic competition with China and Russia as a top priority for the Department of Defense (DoD).2

In the context of China's continuously rapid economic growth, the United States attaches particular importance to China's challenges. Except in the Nuclear Posture Review report, the United States lists Russia before China, but in most other areas sees China as its top strategic competitor. The House Armed Services Committee held a special strategic competition with China hearing in February 2018. The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 explicitly announced the U.S. Congress regards the long-term strategic competition with China as the top priority for the United States, and proposes reconfiguration of the national forces, strengthening of national security across the board from the perspectives of diplomacy, economy, intelligence, law enforcement and military, calls on the U.S. President to deliver a report on the government's China strategy by March 2019.

(2) Having Propagated the U.S. weakened military superiority and proposed the reconstruction of military generation gap

On November 14, 2018, under the nationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, a panel of 12 independent, cross-party former officials and experts composed the National Defense Strategy Board Commission and released its assessment conclusions on the National Defense Strategy Report 2018 developed by the U.S. DoD. The assessment points out that the United States has focused for years on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, America's enemies have developed many new ways of defeating the U.S. military, the United States is losing advantages in important areas of operations such as military movements, air defense and missile defense, cyber warfare and space warfare, anti-ship warfare and anti-submarine warfare, ground long-range firepower, electronic warfare, etc.. Many of the skills necessary to plan and conduct military operations targeted at powerful rivals (especially China and Russia) have been shrinking. The Assessment believes that the United States faces a possible decisive military defeat if it runs into conflict with Russia in the Baltic Sea or launches a war operation with China over Taiwan issue. On 18 November, the Report 2018 released by the USCC points out that China is accelerating its military modernization and putting a large investment into the next generation of modern military technology, rapidly developing and deploying advanced weapon systems, is able to confront the U.S. military within the scope of the second island chain, the U.S. dominant position in the Asia-Pacific region faces challenges, as well as the long-term military technological advantages of the United States is also eroded.

Despite an unprecedented defense budget of US$717 billion for fiscal 2019, but according to Shannahan, the deputy defense secretary of the United States, President Trump has requested the DoD to keep its fiscal 2020 budget within US$700 billion and could remain the same for the next five years to come.3In the context of defense budget constraints, the U.S. DoD actively promotes the Trump version of the "third offset strategy," hopes to adopt strategic arms race measures similar to the "Star Wars" approach to drive the development of military technology and reshapes technology generation gap, makes the opponent lose comparative advantages, and gets their conventional military investments discounted. The U.S. National Security Strategy report calls for maintaining technical and scale cutting-edges in all military areas. The nationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 requires the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy that clearly sets priority on science and technology R & D, the investment and the goal, propose ideas and suggestions to ensure sustainable success of the defense R & D and the industrial system in the era of strategic competition. In November 2018, U.S. Media disclosed that a group of defense officials led by the former deputy director of the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative and the incumbent Deputy Defense Secretary for technology Michael Griffin, is actively preparing to revive some relevant concepts and institutions of the Star Wars to promote the United States to win a new round of great power strategic competition.4

(3) Having adopted strict measures to further block advanced technologies entering China

The U.S. National Security Strategy report proclaims the important reason of China's military modernization is a constant access to the innovative achievements in the United States through the U.S. world-class universities, research institutions, etc. In order to stalk China's high-tech development, on the one hand, the United States has strengthened its export control measures, on the one hand, restricted Chinese technology companies from investing in the United States.

In August 2018,the U.S. Export Control Reform Bill was approved by President Trump and took effect. As an independent part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the chapter is a product of the Trump Administration's strategy on great-power competition, and the whole chapter is basically tailored to China. In the legislative process, the United States did a lot of research, and produced a series of reports targeted at so-called China's "economic aggression", "technology transfer to China", and "China's technological espionage", and cooked "China’s science and technology threat theory". On the pretext of an arms embargo, the Act imposed stringent export control conditions on China. The Act requires expansion of export controls scope, including in the control list the emerging technologies and basic technologies that were not previously on the control list. On August1, 2018, the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Ministry of Commerce added 44 Chinese entities to the Export Control List, prohibits export of controlled dual-use items to them. On October 12, the U.S. Department of Energy put a "straitjacket- inhibition" on the Sino-U.S. nuclear energy cooperation, and restrict exports of civil nuclear technology to China on the pretext that China may use U.S. nuclear technology for military purposes. On November 19, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security publishes a draft regulation on Specific Emerging Technologies Control at the Federal Register, soliciting comments on identifying standards for 14 categories of emerging technologies such as biological technology, artificial intelligence and robot learning technologies, positioning, navigating, and timing technology and microprocessor technology, etc. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in its annual report even proposes that the U.S. Commerce Department re-evaluate the reasonableness of dual-use technologies exported to China mainland and Hong Kong as two different export destinations, and also proposes that the U.S. government publish an annual report to ensure that the so-called “dependence of the U.S. industrial chain on China" is given enough attention.

While further tightening export controls on China, the United States has also adopted the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act to expand review scope for foreign investment by the Commission, focusing on whether a critical infrastructure, a key technology and or sensitive personal information are involved. It also has a special concern with China’s investment in the United States, requires the Commerce Secretary to submit a report to congress every two years on China's investment in the United States, and analyzes the relationship between the Chinese investment and "made in China 2025."

II. Nuclear powers compete to strengthen their nuclear forces

The Trump Administration sees nuclear weapons as the tool to protect its hegemony and upholds the cold war mentality on the nuclear-won victory, which generate rather serious shocks to the strategic stability of major powers and the process of international nuclear disarmament. Russia responds tit for tat, accelerating the process to modernize nuclear forces, releasing new types of strategic weapons, and showing obvious intention of delivering a message of deterrence. Nuclear powers such as Britain and France and nuclear-have countries such as India and Pakistan have also strengthened their nuclear forces, thus, a major power nuclear race shows a trend tendency of a comeback. .

(1) The United States adjusts its nuclear strategy and pursues absolute nuclear superiority. In February 2018, the U.S. DoD released a new version of its Nuclear Posture Review, which, compared with the Review 2010, reflects the following characteristics.

Firstly, refocusing on major-power confrontation. The new Review report is in line with the U.S. National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy reports, asserts that since 2010 the major power competitions have returned, the U.S.-faced international situation is rapidly deteriorating, the increasingly obvious nuclear threat of the adversaries is a major concern of the U.S. nuclear strategy, and has given much less attention to nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. According to the Review, Russia has decided to return to major-power confrontation, violated the INF treaty, preserved a large arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, constantly upgraded nuclear weapons systems, and attempted to win with nuclear weapons; slanderously claims that China is expanding its conventional forces, seeking modernization of its entire nuclear arsenal, and preparing to use nuclear weapons to challenge America's superiority in the Western Pacific region. In view of the nuclear capabilities and objectives of adversaries such as Russia, China, the DPRK, Iran and others, the United States needs to build "modern, flexible and resilient " nuclear forces, and implements nuclear deterrent strategies tailored to the 4 adversariesof Russia, China, the DPRK and Iran respectively. The Review for the first time releases its nuclear strategy on China, speculates about China's flexible use of nuclear weapons, clamors to maintain nuclear capabilities that can create an intolerable loss to China, get ready to respond to China’s conventional and nuclear attacks, add incremental nuclear counter options to the President to effectively respond to China's limited nuclear strike. But the United States is still wiling to seek dialogue with China, the Review states that it will continue to seek effective dialogue with China on the two sides nuclear policies, principles and capabilities, enhancing transparency and managing the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation, and jointly creating a peaceful and secure environment and stabile bilateral relations.

Secondly, substantially enlarging the scope of nuclear deterrence in an effort to defend the hegemony with the nuclear arsenal. The Review believes that nuclear deterrence is essential for preventing nuclear attacks and non-nuclear strategic attacks, the U.S. nuclear arsenal will provide security guarantee for the Allies and respond to uncertain strategic environment. The Review argues that the United States is facing unprecedented compound threat from the perspectives of conventional, chemical, biological, nuclear, space, cyber weapons and non-state actors, uncertainty and risk of which have significantly increased, the U.S. nuclear forces must get ready. Trump's 2018 state of the union address says that the United States must rebuilt the nuclear arsenal and modernize it, so as to deter any act of aggression by any country and anyone.

Thirdly, strengthening non-strategic nuclear capabilities. In response to Russianstrategy, and strategic and non-strategic nuclear threats from China and the DPRK, etc. the new Review completely abandoned the three non-principle of the previous version, i.e. developing no new nuclear warheads, giving no new military task to the nuclear weapons and add no new military capability to the existing nuclear arsenal; proposes development of a series of non-strategic nuclear weapons, the plan of forward deployment of nuclear bombers and dual-purpose aircrafts, using the F-35A to perform missions; modifying some submarine-launched ballistic missiles so as to carry low-yield nuclear warheads; plan a long-term development of the submarine-launched cruise missiles carrying the low-yield nuclear warheads to increase the flexibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. The Review reflects the U.S. escalated policy approaches relying on nuclear weapons to win, having buried a big hidden danger for the global strategic stability.

Fourthly, investing heavily in updating the nuclear arsenal. The U.S. land, sea and air "three-in-one" nuclear arsenal is facing its first comprehensive renewal in history. According to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office's 2017 report, the United States will spend US$400 billion to modernize its nuclear arsenal during the decade 2017-2026. A new version of the Nuclear Posture Review also states that an additional annual sum amounting to 3-4% of the annual defense budget is invested in the modernisation of the nuclear arsenal for a decade to come. In addition to initiatives such as development of low-yield nuclear weapons, the new Review also highlights the renewal of nuclear weapons infrastructure and ensures it the flexibility to guard against future risks, requires National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to have rapid prototyping, to develop and improve nuclear weapons warheads, shorten the time span for design, R&D, production of the first nuclear warheads, and resume capabilities such as underground nuclear testing and others if necessary.

(2) Other nuclear-weapon states have strengthened their nuclear forces. Under the pressure of the U.S. strengthening nuclear forces, Russia is not to be reconciled and plan to all-dimensionally modernize its strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals. By the end of 2017, the modernization coverage of Russia's nuclear forces exceeds 80 percent. Regarding the land-based missiles, Russia is simultaneously advancing various types of ballistic missile deployment and R & D, Yaeris and its highway mobile modified version of the Yaeris-M are scheduled to complete deployment by 2021. Sarkozy Mart, the world's most powerful new liquid intercontinental ballistic missile completed its launch test at the end of 2017 and is expected to be equipped in 2019-2020. Regarding the sea-based missiles, Russia has four Borey-class nuclear submarines deployed and another 8 will be deployed before 2020. Regarding the air-based missiles, Russia has postponed the R & D launching of a new generation of the PAK-DA strategic bomber till 2023. In order to maintain the long-range bombing combat capability, Russia plans to complete upgrades of 44 Tu-95MS and 10 Tu-160 by 2019, then followed by production of the improved Tu-160M2 bomber, and develop a new missiles model for both Tu-160 M2 and Pak-DA bombers.

In his state of the union address in March 2018, President Putin made an unexpected claim that Russia is developing new weapons to counter American acts of deploying the missile defense system and displays pictures of a series of new strategic weapons such as the Sarkozy Mart heavy-duty intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered cruise missiles, nuclear-powered underwater drones, Dagger’s new hypersonic missile model and, the intention of sending out a deterrent signal is obvious.

France retains its sea-based and air-based strategic nuclear forces, with four Triomphant Class nuclear submarines and more than 50 medium-range nuclear air-to-ground missiles. In February 2018, the French defense minister announced to invest 30 billion euros over the next seven years to modernize its nuclear forces, including development of coded ASN4G fourth-generation air-to-ground nuclear missiles, which is a hypersonic air-to-ground missile at Mach 7-8.

The UK currently has only a sea-based nuclear deterrent, with four Vanguard-class strategic nuclear submarines, each capable of carrying 16 Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The UK Ministry of Defense says in the next 25 years to come the development of the next generation of strategic nuclear forces is expected to cost between ￡70 billion and ￡80 billion, and the cost of nuclear weapons will account for10% to 12% of the defense budget in Britain in the 20 years 2020-2040.

India and Pakistan have also been enlarging their nuclear weapon-grade materials production in recent years, rapidly expanding the number of nuclear weapons, R & D and deployment of new strategic delivery means. Pakistan, in particular, has forward deployed tactical nuclear weapons as a counterbalance to the India's "cold start" strategy, which has drawn great attention from the international arms control community to the possibility of a nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan.

(3) The global nuclear strategic balance faces greater challenges.

On the one hand, the prospects for further nuclear disarmament between the United States and Russia are gloomy, and the existing treaties face a risk of collapse. As the world's two major countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia have special responsibilities and priority obligations on the issue of nuclear disarmament. The new START treaty between the United States and Russia, which comes into force in 2011, expires in 2021, but due to the sluggish U.S.-Russian relations the new round of nuclear disarmament talks between the two countries is indolent. The new version of the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review report believes that there is a sharp decline in constructive interaction between the two countries, and is extremely difficult to yield progress in nuclear disarmament in the near future. Especially under the background of the U.S. announcement of stopping the obligation performance of the INF treaty, the strategic relations between the United States and Russia becomes more tense, so there is little chance of agreement on the new round of nuclear disarmament, and even an extension of the original treaty is rather difficult. The ABM treaty, the INF treaty and the new START treaty are the three major pillars of strategic stability for the United States and Russia as well as for the whole world. The George W. Bush Administration withdrew in 2001 from the ABM treaty, and Trump’s announcement of leaving the INF treaty further shakes the global strategic stability, and if theNew START treaty, which in 2021 expires, will not be extended, a major-power nuclear competition will return to the jungle.

On the other hand, U.S. missile defense capabilities are growing increasingly stronger, which seriously impacts the strategic stability of major countries. Originally scheduled for February 2018, the U.S. Missile Defense Review report was delayed for release, one of the major controversies surrounding the delayed release is whether or not to clearly identify China and Russia as targets of defense. In October 2018, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Shanahanstated that the Review report is completed, and is reflected in the DoD budget for fiscal year 2019. From the budget perspective, the U.S. missile defense will further tilt toward space detection and interception capabilities, the intentions of developing defense capabilities against Chinese and Russian strategic missiles are very clear.5Considering that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 had substantially changed the legal restrictions on the missile defense used only for prevention of a limited number of ballistic missile attacks since the Fiscal Year 2019, and required the United States to develop a robust and effective multi-level missile defense system that ensures the security of the United States and its Allies, the U.S. new Nuclear Posture Review no longer clearly states its willingness to work with China and Russia to maintain strategic stability, but even proposes providing an important foundation for capabilities targeting at regional missile threats, missile defense and preemptive strike to significantly reduce the loss of deterrence failure, which to a certain extent shows the U.S. strategic intention to try to break with the existing strategic balance pattern, and seek the absolute superiority.

III. The U.S. Withdrawal from the INF treaty will intensify the global arms race

The INF treaty was a milestone arms control treaty signed by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, and provides that the United States and the Soviet Union destroy the land-based medium-range cruise and ballistic missiles with the range of 500-5500 kilometers together with their launchers and auxiliary equipments. The treaty ended the U.S. and USSR arms race on the intermediate-range missiles in Europe, helped to improve relations between them, and created the conditions for further reduction of the offensive strategic weapons in the later days. After the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan continue to accept the obligation of the treaty. On February 1, 2019, Trump abruptly announced that the United States will stop performing the obligations provided by the INF treaty, and formally withdraw from the treaty on August 2 if Russia does not stop violations of the treaty. which would remove an important pillar of the international arms control system, stimulate an arms race, impact global strategic stability, and affect security of Europe and the Asia-Pacific.

(1) The U.S. withdrawal has long been foreshadowed. During the Obama Administration, the U.S. strategic community had already seriously discussed the pros and cons of withdrawal and various options. Meanwhile, the United States created a public opinion foreshadowing for the withdrawal. In 2014, the U.S. side officially accused the Russian side of violating the treaty, and in 2017 explicitly identified the default model as Russia’s 9M729 land-based cruise missiles. It is believed that the missile range is 2,000 kilometers, which is land-based medium-range missile prohibited by the treaty. Russia denied the U.S. accusations and warned the United States that the U.S. missile defense system’s maneuvering targets missiles and vertical missiles launch systems as well the as drones are banned by treaty. The two sides set up a special verification commission, but no result is recorded after several rounds of consultations. The United States has also made technical preparations for the withdrawal, the Congress in 2017 allocated US$58 million to develop new land-based medium-range missiles. But Trump has taken the key step of withdrawal from the treaty, which is very much related to the adjustment of U.S. national security strategy.

The Trump Administration's National Security Strategy report released in 2017 announced the policy of engagement with China and Russia for more than two decades after the cold war had failed, it will enter the era of major powers competition in the future, and it has turned its targets against China and Russia rather than the international terrorist force. To that end, the United States has increased its military budget, enlarged the nuclear arsenal, strengthened the high-tech blockade, and tried one way or another to shake off or withdraw from those international treaties or mechanisms thought to tie its hands. Regarding withdrawal from the INF treaty, the Trump Administration has two excuses: One is the Russians have repeatedly violated the treaty, and the United States cannot be bound unilaterally by the treaty. Two is that today as the United States views China its competitor, so some officials and politicians believe that the treaty is incompatible with the times.Admiral Harris, then head of U.S. Pacific Command, argued that the treaty restrains the U.S. capability to counter cruise missiles and land-based missiles from China and other countries. Republican Senator Cotton also clamored thatChina is stockpiling missiles because they are not bound by the treaty at all, and had been calling on the United States to consider whether this treaty is still in the national interests.6Of course, the international community hasalso widely noted the prime pusher behind the withdrawal - John Bolton, an America's famous hawk and current National Security Adviser to the President.

(2) The U.S. announcement of leaving the INF treaty is to facilitate its strategic competition with China and Russia. One is to drag China and Russia into an arms race to impose economic burdens on them so as to create conditions for America to win major-power competition. Trump said that the United States had more money to spend on an arms race than anyone and is ready for it. Two is to renegotiate rules of conduct under the conditions favorable to America, bringing Russia, China and even other countries with intermediate-missile capabilities into the framework, and replace the bilateral treaty with a multilateral treaty. Actually, the Trump Administration is obsessed with power, has little appetite for a so-called new treaty, but makes use of this to impose pressure externally, and strives for the maximum interests. Three is seeking more diversified ways to deploy missiles in Europe and Asia-Pacific and building a regional power structure beneficial to the United States. Senior researcher Thomas of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments -- a U.S. think tank—believes that the intermediate-range missiles will give the United States a bigger advantages in the Asia-Pacific region because of the low cost and difficult interception and can hit high valued-targets although not enough to win in the Sino-U.S. conflict, yet can greatly increase China’s cost of a war. Four is to drive a wedge among China and Russia and their neighbors through the deployment of land-based medium-range missiles, which makes them suspicious of each other, thus further tightening its Eurasian Allies onto its war chariot.

(3) The U.S. withdrawal will affect the global strategic stability.

Firstly, the U.S.-Russian land-based medium-range missile race will return. In March 2019, the U.S. DoD official said that it plans to have land-based cruise-missiles banned by the INF treaty tested by August, which has the range of about 1000 km, and this missiles can be deployed within 1.5 years if the test is successful. The United States also plans to have medium-range ballistic missiles tested in coming November, which has the range of about 2900-3900 km, and needs about 5 years of R&D and then deployment is followed. Russia has long been interested in withdrawing from the INF treaty. Back in February 2007, the then Russian Armed Forces Chief of General Staff Yuri Paruyefski, targeting the U.S. deployment of missile defense system in Europe, said that Russia could revisit the entire nuclear deterrent treaties framework. Sergei Ivanov, Russia's former Defense Minister, said that the INF treaty is the Cold War legacy, and argued that Russia should equip its nuclear arsenal with medium- and short-range missiles. Russia has rich technical reserve for developing land-based medium-range missiles, and may also rapidly expand the medium-range missiles forces once the ban is lifted. After the U.S. announcement of stopping performance of the INF treaty, Russian President Putin also announced on 2 February 2019 the withdrawal and started the withdrawal procedure. On 5 February, Russian Defense Minister Schoigu issues an order for developing see-based medium-range cruise missiles during 2019-2022, and also land-based hypersonic weapons systems.

Secondly, the security situation in the two wings of Eurasia will become more tense. If the United States leaves the INF treaty, Russia, in response to NATO Eastward expansion, neutralizing NATO missile defense, and preventing NATO from intervening in its neighborhood affairs, will probably redeploy medium-range missiles. European countries hate to become a nuclear hostages again, and are unsatisfied with the United States to leave the treaty regardless of the interests of European Allies. Germany, France and the European Union's External Action Service all took issue with the U.S. move. French President Emmanuel Macron even again proposes to build a real European army, just in case of fending off China, Russia and the United States, which at one point sparks a war of words with Trump. It is foreseeable that in the short term, the U.S.-EU security relationship will be affected negatively. But in the long run, European countries do not have the ability to stand independently from the United States, and is highly likely for them to yield to the United States in the end. If tensions between NATO and Russia flare up, which is likely to get in a vicious circle, European countries will be forced to accept U.S. medium-range missiles deployed on national territory. Previously, the United States planned to develop missile defense system, there was emerging a strong opposing voice in European countries, which now have become a big fan of Europe's adaptive missile defense system. Regarding the INF treaty, Europe is likely to follow suit. By then, the nightmare of the medium-range missiles confrontation between the United States and Russia is likely to reoccur in Europe. The cancellation of the INF treaty will have more complex impacts on the Asia-Pacific region. The United States may seek the deployment of land-based medium-range missiles in places such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Guam, etc. in combination with the sea-based and air-based missiles, which constitutes a threat to countries such as China and Russia, will exacerbate the militarization of the regional situation and generate new contradictions between China & Russia and U.S. & Asia-Pacific Allies.

Thirdly, it will impact the international arms control and non-proliferation system. The international arms control system formed during and after the Cold War is gradually eroded: The ABM treaty is cancelled; the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe has expired; The implementation of the Treaty on Open Skies is called into question; The new U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty is due to expire in 2021, and prospect for renewal is gloomy; and the United States also threatens to scrap the ban on deploying nuclear weapons in outer space. The U.S. withdrawal from the INF treaty will accelerate the collapse of the dominoes, leading to a collapse of the entire international arms control system. In addition, it would weaken the moral foundation for multilateral missile proliferation control mechanisms such as the Missile Technology Control Regime, and stimulate other countries to develop medium-range missiles, which is unbeneficial to a appropriate resolution of the DPRK and Iran nuclear issues. If the INF treaty marks the Cold War coming to an end, and America's withdrawal from it may herald the beginning of a new Cold War. As U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres puts it that a new Cold War is more frightening than the Cold War because it will be an arms race without rules.

IV. Major powers point their swords at the new frontier of strategic security

Currently, the pattern of global strategic forces is becoming more complex, in addition to the traditional nuclear forces and anti-missile forces, the newly emerging strategic technologies may significantly change the major powers strategic balance of strength. Over the past year, the strategic moves of the United States and other major powers in space and intelligent energy are particularly eye-catching.

(1) The militarization of space has reached a new stage. The year 2018 is the one in which there was a major escalation in militarization of space. The typical event was the announcement of forming the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces - the Space Force by the U.S. Trump Administration. This will intensify military competitions in space and further weaken the poorly organized international space security mechanism.

Space has enormous military operational value. Therefore, generally speaking, after the Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite in the year 1957, the human kind started the militarization of space. Thereafter, the United States, the Soviet Union/Russia and other major countries have developed and built their own space military forces respectively. The United States, for example, began integrating space forces into military operations in 1978, and the established various space command in all the branches and the joint space command the 1980s. But the United States still decentralized space missions across the five branch services, and designated the air force space command as the operational unit. The Trump Administration took a major step in 2018, on June 18 announced establishment of the Space Force, as the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces followed the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Subsequently, the U.S. DoD conducted a seven-week review, and assessed the necessary procedure for establishing the Space Force as the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. On August 9th, Vice President Mike Pence, who chairs the National Space Council, announced the launch of the U.S. Space Force before 2020. To that end, the United States needs to launch a space command, space combat force and space development program. In the early days of its formation, the U.S. Space Force is one rank below the other branches. The United States will first form its independent space command, led by a four-star general, and transfer some personnel from other branches. The space command is responsible for unified command and control, ensuring cross-branches integration and developing future space war theories, tactics, techniques and procedures. The space combat force is the backbone of the future Space Force and is a joint force for operations in space; the Space Development Program is responsible for providing forward space operations capability.

The creation of the Space Force is an inevitable outcome of the Trump Administration's "America First" and "seeking peace with strength" policy, which is in line with its concept of national security strategy. In the area of space, the Trump Administration has also emphasized "America First" and "seeking peace with strength", arguing that America's competitors and adversaries have made the space a war zone, and the United States must maintain leading position and freedom of action in space. In the respect of strategy, the United States attaches great importance to space security, and believes that space factors are involved in communications, financial networks, military and intelligence gathering, weather monitoring, navigation and so on, "space democratization" has an impact on military operations and undermines America's ability to win in conflicts. On December 11, 2017, Trump signed the first space policy directive, which calls for deterring, countering and repelling a hostile threat to the national interests of the United States and its Allies in space. If the American space station infrastructure facility is under attack, then the United States would counterattack at a time, a place and in area of its own choice. In the respect of mechanism, Trump has rebuilt the Space Council to strengthen coordination on the space affairs. The Council is chaired by Vice President Pence, and is composed of secretary of state, the secretary of defense, secretary of commerce, secretary of communications, secretary of homeland security, NASA director, director of national intelligence, President's national security adviser, White House chief of management and budget, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, whose job it is to present ideas on the nation's space policy and strategy to the President and coordinate space policy among government agencies and institutions. In the respect of space military matters, Trump always preaches that America may need a new armed force to defend space, or need a space force,7which is controversial within the United States. TheU.S. Defense Policy Act 2019 makes no mention of a space force. The Air Force isn't very positive either, and Air Force Secretary Wilson said it is just a bureaucratic move and can't increase military lethality, but Trump has acted willfully, and pushed the U.S. military to break through red line eventually.

The peace of space will be seriously undermined. On the one hand, the space arms race will get worse and worse. With the Space Force building on the agenda, the United States will substantially increase military input in space. Released in early 2018, the U.S. National Defense Strategy states it will prioritize funds for projects on rebuilding and ensuring the ability to carry out space missions; the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 also increased research funding for space technology and space-based missile defense, which is bound to stimulate other countries to strengthen their development of space military institutions, theories and capability, let the arms race play out again in space. Because space attacks directly cause fewer casualties, and available checks are weak, so it is easy to trigger escalation of international conflicts. On the other hand, the prospect for space security is worrying. Space security mechanism is basically incomplete, there are only some limited rules of conducts such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, and the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement and others. China-Russia’s proposal on negotiating a treaty banning the weaponization of space is slow to make significant progress. The United States rushed to build a space force, which will further break up the existing rules. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space, but Pence refuses to rule out the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in space, arguing that his matter should be decided on the basis of the principle of seeking peace with strength, which reflects the selfishness and narrowness of America's space policy, and will poses a serious threat to the peaceful use of space by mankind.

(2) Major powers wrestle with artificial intelligence arms race. In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence technology has emerged, which indicates broad prospects for military applications, major powers such as the United States and Russia see it as an important cutting-edge height for future military technology, one after another increases investment and constraints the related international rules-making, so a risk of an artificial intelligence arms race cannot be ignored.

The United States constantly strengthens the strategic planning and project research on artificial intelligence in an attempt to secure its cutting-edge in this emerging domain. On 27 March 2018, Joshua Marcuse, the adviser for military innovation at the U.S. DoD said that the United States has no alternative except to meet tough China with toughness in developing military artificial intelligence weapons .8

Firstly, establishment of a joint artificial intelligence center of the DoD to accelerate the military layout of artificial intelligence. U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis on April 12, 2018 made it clear during a House Armed Services Committee meeting that the United States prepares to set up a joint office to integrate all the manpower for artificial intelligence work within the DoD. In mid-May, DoD Deputy Secretary Griffin, in charge of research and engineering, undertook a special presentation during a House Armed Services Committee hearing regarding the organizational structure, executives, location, and how to conduct research to adapt to the U.S. national and military artificial intelligence strategy of a joint artificial intelligence center of the DoD. Griffin said that there are currently 592 projects involving artificial intelligence work, the mission to establish the center is breaking down various barriers, bringing together the entire military and 17 intelligence agencies to work together to advance the government's artificial intelligence program so as to keep the U.S. technical cutting–edge in the domain. On August 10, new Chief Information Officer Deasy of DoD said during an interview that the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center will make significant progress in 2019, and carry out R & D on universal tools to drive artificial intelligence applications. The joint center will be dedicated to promoting the delivery of AI military capabilities and develop related tools and technology, to the benefit of the entire U.S. military.9

Secondly, strengthening national strategies building and increasing resources input for artificial intelligence. The United States invests heavily in artificial intelligence through theDefense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), venture capital funds as well as Google, Microsoft and other U.S. companies. The DoD spent a total of US$7.4 billion on AI and related areas in 2017, according to U.S. media reports.10On 7 September 2018,DARPA announced that in the next five years, the U.S. military will spend US$2 billion on developing new AI systems for American military equipments.11In June 2018, U.S. officials disclosed that the Pentagon was conducting several secret projects to do R & D on computer systems using AI technology so as to detect and respond to nuclear missile attacks.12If the R & D is successful, artificial intelligence-run computer systems will enable to outperform the human speed and accuracy for screening satellite images and other massive data, and look for signs that a missile is ready to launch. After the warning of AI system, the U.S. Government can choose diplomatic means to deal with it. If a missile launch is imminent, the U.S. military could gain more time to destroy or intercept in advance. The U.S. Government has increased investment in these AI projects. The Trump Administration in the Defense Budget Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 allocates US$83 million for one of those programs, three times the amount it received previously.13

Russia plans major breakthroughs in developing AI and unmanned technologies in the next 20 years to come. President Putin states artificial intelligence is "the future of mankind", and whichever country commands it will "rule the world". But Russia is also well aware that it is short of funds and unable to comprehensively compete with the West, therefore, in practice, Russia's AI strategy follows a thinking featured by "military priority, key breakthrough". At the moment, Russia on a yearly basis invests in AI projects around 700 million rubles (about US$12.5 million), which is trifling compared with billions of dollars spent by U.S. and Chinese corporations. To make the most of the limited funds available, the Russian principle is to prioritize on the military purposes in the development of artificial intelligence, characterized by the "military-led, military-civilian joint efforts, and military-civilian integration". The Russian Government institutions, the Ministry of Defense and its affiliates as well as research centers are the leading institutions of artificial intelligence R & D. Russia's Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in March 2018 called for a coalition of civilian and military experts to develop AI technology so as to cope with a possible threat in the technological and economic security fields. In the same month, the Russian Advanced Research Foundation (ARF) – equivalent to U.S. DARPA -- announced a program, dividing the artificial intelligence R&D into four categories: image recognition, voice recognition, autonomous military system control, and weapon life cycles information support.

Because Russia is unable to compete with Western countries in the AI area across the board, therefore, can only seek breakthroughs in key areas, while electronics warfare and missile field are the most promising fields for Russians to achieve AI breakthroughs. In the year 2017, Russia in Syria, Eastern Ukraine and Crimea deployed electronic warfare systems, amassing electronic signals data from the United States and other Western countries to be used in AI learning systems so as to improve the Russian electronic warfare system. In 2018, the Russian army equipped its electronic warfare brigades with "Warrior Song" electronic warfare system, which can, based on intercepted radio signals, automatically recognize the nature of the enemy target to be dealt with within seconds, identify a jamming mode through interference signals sent to the enemy radio and the electronic equipment system, select the most suitable electronic equipment system to perform a jamming task and draw up an operational order. Russian tactical missiles corporation in July 2018 announced a plan to develop AI missiles using machine to do math.

The rush by major powers to invest in militarized applications of artificial intelligence has sparked international concerns. In July 2018, sponsored by the Future of Life Institute, over 160 AI corporations from 36 countries and more than 2,000 well-known AI scholars from 90 countries in Sweden adopted the Declaration on Lethal Autonomous Weapons, which is a jointly signed declaration on "autonomous weapons" on largest scale in history. The declaration believes that in any country in the world, autonomous weapons pose a "clear and present danger" to the public and the signatories pledge "never to take part in R&D on "autonomous weapons".14Compared with the active announcement by those civilian researchers, the United Nations is staggering in this area because of major countries’ impeding. The second meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons held two rounds of dialogue in April and August 2018, with representatives from 88 countries and regions participating. The meeting agreed on 10 "possible guidelines" for lethal autonomous weapons systems, but the meeting failed to reach a consensus on holding formal negotiations on banning "killer-robots powered entirely by artificial intelligence" because of block from major powers such as the United States and Russia.15

( Edited excerpt of the article in International Study Reference, No.2, 2019)

Footnotes:

1.“National Security Strategy of the United States of America”，https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final- 12-18-2017-0905-2.pdf（Net-visit date 26 November 2018）

2.“Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of The United States of America”, https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/ 2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary. pdf（Net-visit date 26 November 2018）

3.“It’s Official: DoD Told to Take Cut with FY20 Budget”,https://www.defensenews.com/ pentagon/2018/10/26/its-official-dod-told-to-take-cut-with-fy20-budget/（Net-visit date 21 November 2018）

4.“Decades after ‘Star Wars,’ Pentagon Looks Back to the Future on Missile Defense”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/decades-after-star-wars-pentagon-looks-back-to-the-future-on-missile-defense/2018/11/12/b1cff6f6-c761-11e8-9158-09630a6d8725_story.html?utm_term=.d4338f54370d (Net-visit date 28 November 2018.

5.“Missile Defense Review Complete, Shanahan Says”, https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/10/04 /missile-defense-review-complete-shanahan-says/#.W7ZA507lo AA.twitter (Net-visit date 25 November 2018)

6.“Cotton Statement on Reports the U.S. Is Preparing to Withdraw from INF Treaty”, https://www.cotton.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1014（Net-visit date 26 November 2018 ）

7.“Trump Touting‘ Space Force’ Puts Air Force in Awkward Spot”, https://www.defensenews.com/ congress/2018/03/14/trump-touting-space-force-puts-air-force-in-awkward-spot/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2003.15.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief（Net-visit date 28 November 2018）

8.“Drones, Bots, and Smart Weapons: Artificial Intelligence and Asian Security”, https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/events/drones-bots-and-smart-weapons-artificial-intelligence-and-asian-security（Net-visit date 26 November 2018）

9.“Defense CIO Describes Vision for Joint AI Center”, https://www.afcea.org/content/defense-cio-describes-vision-joint-ai-center（Net-visit date 23 November 2018）

10.DoD Spent $7.4 Billion on Big Data, AI and the Cloud Last Year. Is That Enough?” https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2017/12/06/dods-leaning-in-on-artificial-intelligence-will-it-be-enough/（Net-visit date 22 November 2018）

11.“DARPA Plans to Spend $2 Billion Developing New AI Technologies”, https://www.forbes. com/sites/samshead/2018/09/07/darpa-plans-to-spend-2-billion-developing-new-ai-technologies/#485b5ddf3ae1（Net-visit date 22 November 2018）

12.“INSIGHT-Deep in the Pentagon, A Secret AI Program to Find Hidden Nuclear Missiles”, https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-pentagon-missiles-ai/insight-deep-in-the-pentagon-a-secret-ai-program-to-find-hidden-nuclear-missiles-id USL2N1ST1GG（Net-visit date 23 November 2018）

13.“Deep in the Pentagon, A Secret AI Program to Find Hidden Nuclear Missiles”, https://www. reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-missiles-ai-insight/deep-in-the-pentagon-a-secret-ai-program-to-find-hidden-nuclear-missiles-id USKCN1J114J（Net-visit date 22 November 2018）

14.“Thousands of Leading AI Researchers Sign Pledge against Killer Robots”, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/18/thousands-of-scientists-pledge-not-to-help-build-killer-ai-robots（Net-visit date 22 November 2018）

15.“US, Russia Block Formal Talks on Whether to Ban ‘Killer Robots’”, https://www.politico.eu/article/killer-robots-us-russia-block-formal-talks-on-whether-to-ban/（Net-visit date 23 November 2018）