ដោយ ៖ ម៉ែវ សាធី
ថ្ងៃទី 25 មករា 2013 Nokor Wat News
President Barack Obama believes, as he put it in his third debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, that though
Yes, the army's horses have been superseded by tanks and helicopters, and its bayonets rendered mainly ceremonial by armor and long-range automatic fires, but what, precisely, has superseded ships in the navy? The commander-in-chief has arrived at the epiphany that the ships of today could beat the hell out of those of 1916. To which one could say, like Neil Kinnock, "I know that, Prime Minister," and go on to add that we must configure the navy to face not the dreadnoughts of 1916 but "things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them," and "ships that go underwater," and also ballistic missiles, land-based aviation, and electronic warfare.
To hold that numbers and mass in war are unnecessary is as dangerous as believing that they are sufficient. Defense contractor Norman Augustine famously observed that at the rate fighter planes are becoming complex and expensive, soon we will be able to build just one. Neither a plane nor a ship, no matter how capable, can be in more than one place at once. And if one ship that is in some ways equivalent to 100 is damaged or lost, we have lost the equivalent of 100. But, in fact, except for advances in situational awareness, missile defense, and the effect of precision-guided munitions in greatly multiplying the target coverage of carrier-launched aircraft, the navy is significantly less capable than it was a relatively short time ago—in anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, the ability to return ships to battle, and the numbers required to accomplish the tasks of deterrence or war.
For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's diplomacy in the South China Sea is doomed to impotence because it consists entirely of declarations without the backing of sufficient naval potential, even now when China's navy is not half of what it will be in a decade. China's claims, equivalent to American expropriation of Caribbean waters all the way to the coast of Venezuela, are much like Hitler's annexations. But we no longer have bases in the area, our supply lines are attenuated across the vastness of the Pacific, we have much more than decimated our long-range aircraft, and even with a maximum carrier surge our planes would have to battle at least twice as many Chinese fighters.
Not until recently would China have been so aggressive in the South China Sea, but it has a plan, which is to grow; we have a plan, which is to shrink; and you get what you pay for. To wit, China is purposefully, efficiently, and successfully modernizing its forces and often accepting reductions in favor of quality. And yet, to touch upon just a few examples, whereas 20 years ago it possessed one ballistic missile submarine and the U.S. 34, now it has three (with two in the ways) and the U.S. 14. Over the same span, China has gone from 94 to 71 submarines in total, while the U.S. has gone from 121 to 71. Ours are better, but as ours become fewer China's are catching up and increasing in number.
The effect in principal surface warships is yet more pronounced. While China has risen from 56 to 78, the U.S. has descended from 207 to 114. In addition to parities, China is successfully focusing on exactly what it needs—terminal ballistic missile guidance, super-fast torpedoes and wave-skimming missiles, swarms of ocean-going missile craft, battle-picture blinding—to address American vulnerabilities, while our counters are insufficient or non-existent.
Nor is China our only potential naval adversary, and with aircraft, surface-to-surface missiles, and over-the-horizon radars the littoral countries need not have navies to assert themselves over millions of square miles of sea. Even the Somali pirates, with only outboard motors, skiffs, rocket-propelled grenades, and Kalashnikovs, have taxed the maritime forces of the leading naval states.
* * *
What, then, is a relatively safe number of highly capable ships appropriate for the world's richest country and leading naval power? Not the less than 300 at present, or the 200 to which we are headed, and not 330 or 350 either, but 600, as in the 1980s. Then, we were facing the Soviet Union, but now China, better suited as a maritime power, is rising faster than the United States at present is willing to face.
The trend lines are obvious and alarming, but in addition we face a potentially explosive accelerant of which the president is probably blissfully unaware, as is perhaps even his secretary of the navy who, as he dutifully guts his force, travels with an entourage befitting Kubla Khan, or at least Kubla Khan, Jr. That is that whereas the American Shipbuilding Association (now dissolved) counted six major yards, China has more than 100. Whenever China becomes confident of the maturation of its naval weapons systems, it can surge production and leave us as far behind as once we left the Axis and Japan. Its navy will be able to dominate the oceans and cruise in strength off our coasts, reversing roles to its pleasure and our peril—unless we attend to the navy, in quality, numbers, and without delay.
This would demand a president who, like Ronald Reagan, would damn the political torpedoes and back a secretary of the navy who, like John Lehman, would unashamedly and with every power of rhetoric and persistence rebuild the fleets. The military balance, the poise of the international system, and the peace of the world require no less. Nor does America deserve less. But in the next four years it will get less, much less, from an American administration that—perhaps uniquely in our history—neither understands nor trusts American power.
----------------------------------------
By Mark Helprin
http://www.claremont.org
Posted January 21, 2013
we have fewer ships than we did in 1916...we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater.... The question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities.
Yes, the army's horses have been superseded by tanks and helicopters, and its bayonets rendered mainly ceremonial by armor and long-range automatic fires, but what, precisely, has superseded ships in the navy? The commander-in-chief has arrived at the epiphany that the ships of today could beat the hell out of those of 1916. To which one could say, like Neil Kinnock, "I know that, Prime Minister," and go on to add that we must configure the navy to face not the dreadnoughts of 1916 but "things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them," and "ships that go underwater," and also ballistic missiles, land-based aviation, and electronic warfare.
To hold that numbers and mass in war are unnecessary is as dangerous as believing that they are sufficient. Defense contractor Norman Augustine famously observed that at the rate fighter planes are becoming complex and expensive, soon we will be able to build just one. Neither a plane nor a ship, no matter how capable, can be in more than one place at once. And if one ship that is in some ways equivalent to 100 is damaged or lost, we have lost the equivalent of 100. But, in fact, except for advances in situational awareness, missile defense, and the effect of precision-guided munitions in greatly multiplying the target coverage of carrier-launched aircraft, the navy is significantly less capable than it was a relatively short time ago—in anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, the ability to return ships to battle, and the numbers required to accomplish the tasks of deterrence or war.
For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's diplomacy in the South China Sea is doomed to impotence because it consists entirely of declarations without the backing of sufficient naval potential, even now when China's navy is not half of what it will be in a decade. China's claims, equivalent to American expropriation of Caribbean waters all the way to the coast of Venezuela, are much like Hitler's annexations. But we no longer have bases in the area, our supply lines are attenuated across the vastness of the Pacific, we have much more than decimated our long-range aircraft, and even with a maximum carrier surge our planes would have to battle at least twice as many Chinese fighters.
Not until recently would China have been so aggressive in the South China Sea, but it has a plan, which is to grow; we have a plan, which is to shrink; and you get what you pay for. To wit, China is purposefully, efficiently, and successfully modernizing its forces and often accepting reductions in favor of quality. And yet, to touch upon just a few examples, whereas 20 years ago it possessed one ballistic missile submarine and the U.S. 34, now it has three (with two in the ways) and the U.S. 14. Over the same span, China has gone from 94 to 71 submarines in total, while the U.S. has gone from 121 to 71. Ours are better, but as ours become fewer China's are catching up and increasing in number.
The effect in principal surface warships is yet more pronounced. While China has risen from 56 to 78, the U.S. has descended from 207 to 114. In addition to parities, China is successfully focusing on exactly what it needs—terminal ballistic missile guidance, super-fast torpedoes and wave-skimming missiles, swarms of ocean-going missile craft, battle-picture blinding—to address American vulnerabilities, while our counters are insufficient or non-existent.
Nor is China our only potential naval adversary, and with aircraft, surface-to-surface missiles, and over-the-horizon radars the littoral countries need not have navies to assert themselves over millions of square miles of sea. Even the Somali pirates, with only outboard motors, skiffs, rocket-propelled grenades, and Kalashnikovs, have taxed the maritime forces of the leading naval states.
* * *
What, then, is a relatively safe number of highly capable ships appropriate for the world's richest country and leading naval power? Not the less than 300 at present, or the 200 to which we are headed, and not 330 or 350 either, but 600, as in the 1980s. Then, we were facing the Soviet Union, but now China, better suited as a maritime power, is rising faster than the United States at present is willing to face.
The trend lines are obvious and alarming, but in addition we face a potentially explosive accelerant of which the president is probably blissfully unaware, as is perhaps even his secretary of the navy who, as he dutifully guts his force, travels with an entourage befitting Kubla Khan, or at least Kubla Khan, Jr. That is that whereas the American Shipbuilding Association (now dissolved) counted six major yards, China has more than 100. Whenever China becomes confident of the maturation of its naval weapons systems, it can surge production and leave us as far behind as once we left the Axis and Japan. Its navy will be able to dominate the oceans and cruise in strength off our coasts, reversing roles to its pleasure and our peril—unless we attend to the navy, in quality, numbers, and without delay.
This would demand a president who, like Ronald Reagan, would damn the political torpedoes and back a secretary of the navy who, like John Lehman, would unashamedly and with every power of rhetoric and persistence rebuild the fleets. The military balance, the poise of the international system, and the peace of the world require no less. Nor does America deserve less. But in the next four years it will get less, much less, from an American administration that—perhaps uniquely in our history—neither understands nor trusts American power.
----------------------------------------
ជាមួយនឹងការអភិវឌ្ឍលើ
វិស័យយោធានិងសព្វាវុធឥតឈប់ឈររបស់កម្លាំងទាហានបដិវត្ដន៍ប្រជាជន
ចិន ពិសេសគឺកម្លាំងទាហានជើងទឹកដែល
មានទ្រង់ទ្រាយធំបំផុតនៅទ្វីបអាស៊ីធ្វើ ឱ្យប្រទេសជិត
ខាងព្រួយបារម្ភពីឥទ្ធិពល ទាំងនោះ ។ ក្នុងពេលជាមួយគ្នានេះ
អាមេរិកបានលូកដៃចូលជ្រៅនៅក្នុង
វិវាទរវាងចិននឹងប្រទេសជិតខាង ពិសេស គឺវិវាទចិន
និងជប៉ុនប្រជុំកោះសេនកាគូ ដែលអាមេរិកត្រូវតែ
ការពារដល់សម្ពន្ធមិត្ដជប៉ុន ។
ដូច្នេះដើម្បីទប់ទល់ជាមួយកម្លាំងទាហានដ៏ខ្លាំងក្លារបស់ចិននៅលើ
ដែនសមុទ្រអាមេរិកត្រូវ ប្រើប្រាស់នាវា ចម្បាំង
នាវាផ្ទុកយន្ដហោះប៉ុន្មានគ្រឿង ទើបអាចទប់ទល់បាន ។
នៅពេលនេះចិន
មានគម្រោងបើកការវាយប្រហារនាវាចម្បាំងនាវាផ្ទុកយន្ដហោះរបស់អាមេ
រិកពីកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីលនៅ គ្រប់ទិសទីធ្វើឱ្យ
អាមេរិកមិនអាចតតាំងរួច ។
អ្នកឯកទេសស្រាវជ្រាវយូរឆ្នាំរបស់
មជ្ឈមណ្ឌលស្រាវជ្រាវClermont លោក Mark Helprin បានសរ
សេរនូវអត្ថបទ មួយស្ដីពីកម្លាំងទាហានជើងទឹករបស់ អាមេរិក
ដែលបេក្ខភាពប្រធានាធិបតី មីតរ៉ូនី និយាយថា “ចំនួននាវាចម្បាំង
របស់ទាហានជើងទឹកអាមេរិកនាពេល នេះ មិនស្មើនឹងដើមសតវត្សមុន
នោះ ឡើយ” ចំណែកប្រធានាធិបតី បារ៉ាក់អូ បាមា និយាយថា
លក្ខណៈរបស់ទាហាន អាមេរិកបាន ផ្លាស់ប្ដូរលើសពីនេះទៅ ទៀត
អាមេរិកបានបំពាក់សម្ភារយោធា ទំនើបៗ ដូចជានាវាផ្ទុកយន្ដហោះ
និង នាវាមុជទឹក។
ប៉ុន្ដែ Mark Helprin
បានលើកឡើង ពីការប្រឈមមុខជាមួយកម្លាំងទាហាន ជើងទឹករបស់ចិននា
ពេលបច្ចុប្បន្នគឺ កម្លាំងទាហានអាមេរិក មិនទាន់ប្រាកដ
ថាអាចរារាំងគោលនយោបាយរបស់ ចិននៅ សមុទ្រខាងត្បូងបាននោះឡើយ។លោក
បន្ដទៀតថា បច្ចុប្បន្នចិន កំពុងភាវូបនីយ កម្មយោធា
ដោយមានគោលដៅតែមួយប្រកបដោយប្រសិទ្ធភាពនិងទទួលបានជោគជ័យ។ចិន
កំពុងតែកាត់ បន្ថយគម្លាតពីគុណភាពសព្វាវុធនិងកម្លាំង
យោធារវាងអាមេរិកនឹងចិន។
តួយ៉ាងដូចកាលពី២០ឆ្នាំមុនចិន
មាននាវាមុជទឹកបំពាក់កាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល តែមួយគ្រឿងប៉ុណ្ណោះ
ចំណែកអាមេរិក មានដល់ទៅ៣៤គ្រឿង ប៉ុន្ដែបច្ចុប្បន្នចិន
មានដល់ទៅ៣គ្រឿង បំពាក់កាំជ្រួចមី ស៊ីល
ហើយ២គ្រឿងទៀតនឹងដាក់ឱ្យប្រើប្រាស់ ចំណែកអាមេរិកវិញ
នៅសល់តែ ១៤គ្រឿងប៉ុណ្ណោះ។
តាមការប៉ាន់ប្រមាណក្នុងពេលតែ
មួយដូចគ្នានាវាមុជទឹកសរុបរបស់ចិន ពី៩៤ គ្រឿងថយចុះសល់
៧១គ្រឿងចំណែក ចំនួននាវាមុជទឹករបស់អាមេរិកពី
១២១គ្រឿងកាត់បន្ថយសល់តែ៧១ គ្រឿងដូចគ្នា។
នៅពេលនេះចិនមិនដែល ផ្អាកសកម្មភាពកាត់បន្ថយគម្លាតពីតួ លេខ
និងគុណភាពជាមួយអាមេរិកនោះ ឡើយ។
នៅក្នុងបទអត្ថាធិប្បាយមួយស្ដី
ពីគោលនយោបាយការបរទេសនាពេល កន្លងមកថ្មីៗប្រធានាធិបតី អាមេរិក
បារ៉ាក់អូបាមា បានឆ្លើយនៅសំណួររបស់ គូរប្រជែង មីតរ៉ូនី
ថាទ្រង់ទ្រាយនិងចំនួន នាវាច ម្បាំងរបស់កម្លាំងទាហានជើងទឹក
អាមេរិក តិចជាងឆ្នាំ១៩១៦។ លោកអូ បាមា បញ្ជាក់ថា “សេះនិង
រំពែង”របស់ យើងតិចជាង ដោយសារតែយើងបាន ផ្លាស់ប្ដូរលក្ខណៈ
យើងមាននាវាផ្ទុកយន្ដ ហោះ ដែលអាចនាំទៅជាមួួយយន្ដហោះ
ចម្បាំងរាប់សិបគ្រឿង យើងមាននាវា ចម្បាំងដែលអាចធ្វើ
សកម្មភាពនៅបាត សមុទ្រ មាននាវាមុជដើរដោយថាមពល បរមាណូ។ ដូច្នេះ
បញ្ហានៅត្រង់ចំណុច
ពេលមានសង្គ្រាមកើតឡើងមិនចាំបាច់ត្រូវតែគិតគូរដល់បរិមាណនោះឡើយ
គឺស្ថិតនៅក្នុង សមត្ថភាពខ្ពស់របស់យើង ។
សេះធ្វើសង្គ្រាមរបស់អាហានអាមេ
រិកត្រូវបានផ្លាស់ប្ដូរ ដោយរថគ្រោះនិង ឧទ្ធម្ភាគចក្រ រំពែង
ត្រូវបានផ្លាស់ប្ដូរ ដោយកាំភ្លើងធំ កាំភ្លើងស្វ័យប្រវត្ដិរយៈ
ចម្ងាយឆ្ងាយកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីលដូច្នេះចំពោះ កម្លាំងទាហានជើងទឹក
គឺមាននូវអ្វីដែល អាចផ្លាស់ប្ដូរនាវាចម្បាំងទាំងនោះបាន ?
លោក Mark Helprin បានលើក ឡើងថា ការពិតលំពែងត្រូវបានផ្លាស់ប្ដូរ ដោយកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល ការពារដែនអាកាស ដែលមានកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីលនាំផ្លូវប្រកប ដោយប្រសិទ្ធភាពបំផុត។ យន្ដហោះ ចម្បាំងនៅលើនាវាផ្ទុកយន្ដហោះអាច ធ្វើសកម្មភាពនៅលើបរិវេណទ្រង់ទ្រាយ ធំនិងនាវាមុជទឹក បំពាក់កាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល របស់អាមេរិកក៏បានអាចធ្វើសកម្មភាព បានដ៏ល្អប្រសើរផងដែរ។
លោក Mark Helprin បានលើក ឡើងថា ការពិតលំពែងត្រូវបានផ្លាស់ប្ដូរ ដោយកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល ការពារដែនអាកាស ដែលមានកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីលនាំផ្លូវប្រកប ដោយប្រសិទ្ធភាពបំផុត។ យន្ដហោះ ចម្បាំងនៅលើនាវាផ្ទុកយន្ដហោះអាច ធ្វើសកម្មភាពនៅលើបរិវេណទ្រង់ទ្រាយ ធំនិងនាវាមុជទឹក បំពាក់កាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល របស់អាមេរិកក៏បានអាចធ្វើសកម្មភាព បានដ៏ល្អប្រសើរផងដែរ។
គោលនយោបាយរបស់លោកស្រី
ហ៊ីលឡារីគ្លីនតុន នៅតំបន់សមុទ្រចិនខាង ត្បូងមកទល់ ពេល
នេះ មិនទាន់មានកម្លាំង ខ្លាំងពិតប្រាកដ ដោយសារតែអាមេរិក
មិនទាន់ចេញសេចក្ដីប្រកាសគាំទ្រគ្រប់
គ្រាន់ទោះបីកម្លាំងទាហានជើងទឹកចិន
មិនទាន់បានពាក់កណ្ដាលអាមេរិក ក្នុង រយៈពេល១០ឆ្នាំខាង
មុខទៀតក៏ដោយ។
អំពីសង្គ្រាមនៅលើផ្ទៃទឹកតួលេខរ
វា ចិននឹងអាមេរិក នៅមិនទាន់ច្បាស់នៅ ឡើយ។ នាវាចម្បាំង
នៅលើផ្ទៃទឹករបស់ ចិន មាន៥៦គ្រឿង កើនដល់៧៨គ្រឿង
ចំណែកអាមេរិកមាន២០៧គ្រឿងកាត់
បន្ថយសល់តែ១១៤គ្រឿង។ក្រោយពីការផ្លាស់ប្ដូរបរិមាណចិនបានខិតខំ
ផលិតសព្វាវុធចាំបាច់ សម្រាប់ទប់ទល់នឹងអា មេរិក
ដូចជាកាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល ប្រឆាំងនា វាផ្ទុកយន្ដហោះ
កាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីលបំពាក់
នៅលើនាវាចម្បាំងចំណែកអាមេរិកដូចជាមិនទាន់មានវិធានការសម្រាប់
ទប់ស្កាត់ជាមួយយុទ្ធសាស្ដ្ររបស់ចិននៅ ឡើយ។ ប៉ុន្ដែ
ចិនមិនមែនជាគូប្រជែង របស់អាមេរិកនៅលើដែន ទឹកនោះឡើយ
ដោយអាមេរិកមានសម្ភារទំនើបៗមាន
យន្ដហោះចម្បាំងបំពាក់កាំជ្រួចមីស៊ីល ប្រព័ន្ធរ៉ាដា...។
ចំពោះបញ្ហាទាំងនោះ លោក Mark Helprin លើកឡើងថា ដោយសារតែ ភាពរីកចម្រើន លើវិស័យឧស្សាហកម្មសព្វាវុធរបស់ចិន អាចក្លាយទៅជា មហាអំណាចយោធានៅ លើដែន សមុទ្រ នាក្នុងពេលដ៏ខ្លីខាងមុខ ដូច្នេះ ប្រសិនបើ អាមេរិកចង់ទប់ទល់មិនអាចប្រើប្រាស់ នាវាចម្បាំង២០០រឺ៣០០គ្រឿងនោះ ឡើយ គឺតិចបំផុត ៦០០គ្រឿង ដូចកាល ទស្សវត្ស៨០ ក្នុងសតវត្សទី២០។
ចំពោះបញ្ហាទាំងនោះ លោក Mark Helprin លើកឡើងថា ដោយសារតែ ភាពរីកចម្រើន លើវិស័យឧស្សាហកម្មសព្វាវុធរបស់ចិន អាចក្លាយទៅជា មហាអំណាចយោធានៅ លើដែន សមុទ្រ នាក្នុងពេលដ៏ខ្លីខាងមុខ ដូច្នេះ ប្រសិនបើ អាមេរិកចង់ទប់ទល់មិនអាចប្រើប្រាស់ នាវាចម្បាំង២០០រឺ៣០០គ្រឿងនោះ ឡើយ គឺតិចបំផុត ៦០០គ្រឿង ដូចកាល ទស្សវត្ស៨០ ក្នុងសតវត្សទី២០។
ការថយចុះនៃកម្លាំងទាហានជើងទឹក
របស់អាមេរិកជារឿងមួយគួរឱ្យព្រួយបារម្ភ។បច្ចុប្បន្ន
ក្រុមហ៊ុនផលិតនាវា របស់អាមេរិក មានតែ៦ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ចំណែក
ចិនមានដល់ទៅ១០០ ក្រុមហ៊ុន។
ក្រោយពេលដែលចិនមានជំនឿជឿជាក់ទៅលើសម្ភារសព្វាវុធនៅលើដែនសមុទ្រ
របស់ខ្លួននោះចិននឹងផលិតជាទ្រង់ទ្រាយធំអាច
ដេញទាន់អាមេរិកនៅពេលដ៏ខ្លីខាងមុខ៕
No comments:
Post a Comment