The United States cannot expect to fight on its own terms if it finds itself in an armed conflict with China. The Asian power is likely to resort to unconventional or even asymmetric operations to deny U.S. forces their strong points, offered China experts in a panel at West 2012 in San Diego.

Dr. Alan J. Vick, senior political scientist at Rand Corporation, noted that the recent U.S. conflicts all started at a time and in a manner of U.S. choosing, and this followed a rapid deployment of U.S. forces to forward basing locations. China would not permit that, he said. It would argue that deploying forces to forward bases is an aggressive action, so it would feel free to launch pre-emptive strikes using its newly incorporated tactical ballistic missile strike capability.

Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, USMC (Ret.), principal, WC Gregson & Associates, Inc., and former assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, warned that the United States should investigate space/counterspace capabilities and cyber. A Chinese cyber weapon can attack from its sanctuary without warning, and it could cripple or shut down essential networks in the United States.

Vick called for new infrastructure investments—base hardening and active defense; long-range strike aircraft and missiles; longer range stealthy cruise missiles; and improved stealthy intelligence, surveillance and intelligence. Gregson said that U.S. forces must learn how to do without their “exquisite communications” even they are disabled or modified just a little bit.

Vick pointed out that Chinese and U.S. military forces could confront one another in a number of potential situations, and China is the only country that could do that. Potential flashpoints include Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan. He added that a North Korean implosion may be more risky than an invasion of the South by the North. China fears that U.S. forces may wind up on their border if the North collapses.

China and the United States are hindered in their efforts to build trust by cultural differences that exacerbate misunderstandings between the two nations. A panel of China experts at West 2012 in San Diego outlined several unintentionally contentious areas between the Pacific powers, but it did not have solutions for all of the challenges.

Vice Adm. John M. Bird, USN, director of Navy Staff and former commander of the Seventh Fleet, said that China and many in Asia view the world differently than the United States does, especially when it comes to values. “We fall victim at our peril when we try to apply our mindset to them,” he warned. “For example, our idea of deterrence is their idea of containment. We want to deter access denial; but they don’t see it that way.”

That access denial may be exacerbated by China’s lack of transparency, noted Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, USMC (Ret.), principal, WC Gregson & Associates, Inc., and former assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs. “What is China’s strategic direction?” he asked. “Are they trying to achieve sea control from the land? We are not used to being challenged that way. Our credibility to operate in what China considers its near seas is critical to our perceived deterrence.”

Vice Adm. Ann E. Rondeau, USN, president, National Defense University, pointed out that China is going through its own vertigo on how to interact with other nations as a world leader. One People’s Liberation Army general referred to a “strategic trap” in which the China and the United States may soon find themselves. The admiral called for new scholarship about China, pointing out that the United States does not have the broad outline of China scholars the way it did with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The United States should avoid thinking of China as a potential adversary and work to engage the emerging Asian power, suggested experts in a West 2012 panel. The experts decried the notion of applying Cold War tactics to U.S. China policy and instead supported making China part of an overall Asia policy.

China is a rising force in the military arena, and the United States should pay attention to it as it shapes its Asia-Pacific presence. Vice Adm. John M. Bird, USN, director of Navy Staff and former commander of the Seventh Fleet, said that the United States should interact with China on a military-to-military basis. It will be to the U.S. benefit, particularly given the “astounding” growth of China’s naval capabilities. “All the adjectives that you could apply to their economy, you could apply to their navy,” the admiral said.

Dr. Alan J. Vick, senior political scientist at Rand Corporation, described the U.S.-China relationship as complex with good and bad elements. He emphasized that China is not another Soviet Union, so the United States should not adopt Cold War practices. A NATO of the Pacific is “neither likely nor needed,” he said.

Vice Adm. Ann E. Rondeau, USN, president, National Defense University, noted that in the bipolar world of the Cold War, the United States was superb at playing chess. Now, the nation is engaged in what she described as a three-dimensional chess game, and the moves of the old game no longer apply.

Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry, USA, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in Afghanistan, said that he looks at his fellow soldiers as family—“and I would do anything to protect my family,” he told the audience in an emotionally packed luncheon at West 2012 today, where he was interviewed by former Good Morning America host David Hartman.

Sgt. 1st Class Petry received the Medal of Honor after saving other members of his Army Ranger unit by picking up and hurling a grenade that landed near them. The grenade exploded, and the blast cost him his right hand and part of his forearm. He now wears a plaque on his prosthesis that lists the names of the members of his Ranger battalion who have given their lives in the Global War on Terrorism.

This love for fellow soldiers is what drives an individual soldier to risk everything for others, he told the audience. As service members, they are his family.

The sergeant first class has re-enlisted to make the Army his career. Because of his lost limb, he has not been allowed to return to the front—although he has tried, he admitted. He says his passion now is trying to help those who are coming back from the fight.

New military officers and young people entering the service may face a variety of internal challenges that hold back their careers and deny the service the benefit of their ideas. These challenges range from outmoded thinking among some individuals to a structure that dampens the type of innovation that is desperately needed as the military morphs to fulfill new missions.

A West 2012 panel on the issues confronting junior warfighters featured suggested solutions amid firsthand stories from four young officers. Lt. Benjamin Kohlmann, USN, an F/A-18 instructor pilot with VMFAT-101, related that many young people are doing great things in the field, but then when they return to garrison, they are unable to continue to do so. “You can get relegated to the corner or getting coffee,” he said.

All the panelists agreed that young service members can bring with them new ideas that generate innovations badly needed in the service. Lt. Kohlmann said that the Navy may have brought upon itself the problem of a growing gap between civilians and military personnel. He called for a return to sending junior officers to college campuses instead of just defense-based schools, because these future leaders will be exposed to great ideas from people with different ways of thinking.

Capt. Autumn D. Swinford, USMC, a Marine officer instructor at the University of Missouri NROTC, warned that young people entering the service from NROTC face the possibility that 40 percent of them will not be offered career assignments. They are aware of budget cuts, and they are concerned about what it means for a future in the military, she said.

The captain also related a personal story of how she lost out on a choice assignment while she was deployed to Southwest Asia. A superior officer denied her an assignment for which she was well suited by saying that she was too much of a distraction—“she turns too many heads when she walks into a room,” she quoted him as saying. Capt. Swinford added that she felt this was a failure on the part of that leader, not of the service. Nonetheless, that attitude can be construed as institutional if it is not countered actively.

Support for naval operations is not unusual among U.S. Navy officials, but Undersecretary of the Navy Robert O. Work made a cogent argument that the 21st century will be the maritime century. Speaking at the Thursday morning plenary address at West 2012 in San Diego, Work explained that the need for global reach mandates a strong and versatile maritime force, and the U.S. Navy is being structured to meet future challenges.

Work stated that the center of gravity of the new defense strategy is a true maritime strategy. New basing agreements extend the Navy’s reach and provide support for a plethora of potential missions. Work emphasized that the new basing activities in the Asia-Pacific region are not being done to contain China; they are being done because the United States is a Pacific power and it is in the country’s national interest to remain a Pacific power.

He pointed out that the Navy has ships that are being modernized to be able to accommodate the growing variety of new missions. instead of building expensive ships that cover all the bases, the Navy is incorporating modular technologies so that platforms can be adapted to mission needs. This saves money and increases mission flexibility.

While Work endorsed the budget cuts that are in the works, he warned that proposed sequestration cuts could be a problem. He also cautioned that some recent cuts may have gone too far. “We may have leaned our bases and surface stations too much,” he offered.

The U.S. military needs to be restructured both to meet new threats and to revitalize the force, according to the undersecretary of the Navy. Robert O. Work emphatically defended the new defense strategy in a fiery Thursday morning plenary address at West 2012 in San Diego.

Work pointed out that since the end of the Cold War, the United States will have been at war as much as it has been at peace. This is unprecedented in the country’s geopolitical eras, and that warfighting has stressed the military beyond an acceptable point.

“We have become the Department of War,” Work declared. “We must revitalize our economy and stop using our military instrument as long and as hard as we have been.”

Work cited the Dwight Eisenhower administration as a presidency that faced similar challenges when it took office. Amid diverse and growing threats, President Eisenhower worked to balance the budget and cut defense spending while ensuring military supremacy. The current military restructuring reflects the changing nature of the threat and the necessity of bringing the budget under control.

“The strategic pivot is that we are going to have a period of revitalization,” Work stated. “We are going to revitalize our economy; we are going to revitalize our military—we are going pull back a little on the accelerator.”

The U.S. military is at a crossroads in which it must expand its capabilities while dealing with fiscal limitations that leave little if any room for growth. So, it must do more with its existing assets and capabilities, according to a high-ranking member of the Joint Staff.

Lt. Gen. George J. Flynn, USMC, director, J-7, the Joint Staff, told the Wednesday luncheon audience at West 2012 in San Diego that new era will not be about doing more with less, but instead doing more with what the military already has.

“We’ve entered a new budget environment where you can have anything you want, but you can’t have everything. You have to make the choices,” he stated.

Adversaries may have the most cost-effective approach as they seek an adaptive advantage through asymmetry, the general warned. Some vulnerabilities in the U.S. military may lie in its processes, which an enemy will exploit. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will continue, as will that of area denial weapons.

To adjust accordingly, the United States must take a fresh look at which and how capabilities will be used. Special operations types of capabilities will be important, Gen. Flynn said. Precision battlefield weapons also are game changers.

Risk must be weighed against cost for future military security procurements, according to panelists at West 2012 in San Diego. Not only must planners consider that basic tradeoff for incorporating security, they also must do battle with an outmoded acquisition system and new capabilities that are changing the nature of the cyber threat.

While calling for balance in security cost versus risk, Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer Terry Halvorsen also admitted that no one—whether in government or in industry—is good at truly quantifying the cost effectiveness of security measures. Neither does the government know exactly what it spends on accreditation certification, but that amount is growing every day, he noted.

Rear Adm. Patrick H. Brady, USN, commander, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, also endorsed the concept of balancing risk and cost, but he added that customers need to be sure that they are buying the right products. He called for a move away from the consumption mindset in which organizations are incentivized to spend their allocated funds. In addition to focusing on combat readiness, security acquisition efforts also must have the correct contracting strategies and can sustain competition throughout the lifetime of the product.

The commander of the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group Eleven sees considerable dynamism in the Korean peninsula for the coming calendar year. Rear Adm. Peter A. Gumataotao, USN, told a West 2012 panel audience that the changing environment in both the North and the South could portend substantial changes in the geopolitical picture there.

The Navy admiral said that Korea is ground centric, with both sides having powerful armies. The South is willing to do “anything and everything” to reunify, either through a civil war in the North or if newly crowned leader Kim Jong Un opens up the North to the South.

And, beginning in 2015, the supported command will shift from U.S. forces to the Republic of Korea (ROK). Adm. Gumataotao related that ROK forces have supported the U.S. presence since the cease-fire in 1953, but that will reverse in three years. Already complicated command and control (C2) lines will be even more important then, he noted.