Food and Soldiers: China’s Strategic Weaknesses

Commentary

On Dec. 7,  2022, Dr. Edward Luttwak, a strategy consultant to the U.S. government, gave the keynote speech International Symposium on Security Affairs, Japan’s National Institute of Defense Studies. The speech was entitled “Can China Fight a War?”

The NIDS conference was not covered by most news outlets and Luttwak’s speech was almost never mentioned. China’s strategic weaknesses were missed by news sources. These weaknesses should be pursued vigorously if the Chinese Communist Party orders the People’s Liberation Army to launch a military attack against Taiwan.

Can China Win a War?

Dr. Luttwak mentioned at the start of his speech that it was impossible for him to answer the question. “Would the Chinese government actually initiate war operations; would it go to war against Taiwan?” He observed that leaders of nations (such as Putin, in Ukraine, or Bush in Iraq 2003) are often not recognized. “are quite capable of starting wars they cannot possibly win. That is true of Russians and Americans, and it’s even more true of China.”

Luttwak asked one simple question: “Can the People’s Republic of China as it now exists, actually wage a war … a small war … such as, for example, a war to take Taiwan?”

Luttwak used the term sustainability to explain that the CCP could be in serious trouble if it waged a war against Taiwan now, especially if that war continues for longer than several months. Luttwak’s analysis did not include standard military comparisons between the two countries’ military orders of battle. He used weapon systems and numbers to compare them.

Luttwak instead focused on two crucial strategic weaknesses of China regarding sustainability: food supply and dead soldiers.

Russia: Looking at Russia

Luttwak presented China and Russia as contrasts. First, is Russia able to sustain a war?

Luttwak: “Russia does not import food. Russia may import some special pâté de foie gras from Paris, but the food the Russians make is the food they eat.”

Second, Russia does not import energy; Russia exports energy.

The third most valuable commodity in Russia is the extra sons of certain families.

Food and its importance

Luttwak however noted that China imports several millions of tons of food every year. China will be the largest importer of food in 2022. imported More than 85 per cent of its soybeans (95,000,000 tons) come mainly from the United States and Brazil.

Luttwak claimed that China imports food and feed for humans. “ninety-five million tons of soybeans, plus approximately 20–30,000 tons of maize, wheat, sorghum, millet, and these other things to feed to animals.” He also added meat to his diet. “there are of course dairy imports, a lot of dairy imports.”

Consequently, “China is a protein-eating country and the protein is important. Now, whatever else may happen, the moment a fight of any kind starts, even a small war, G7 type sanctions start,” This means that China will no longer be able to import soybeans from Canada and the United States.

He believed that wars can only be won once they start. “within about three months, they’ll have to kill … most of the pigs and the chicken, the mutton, the beef.”

He claimed that China was more peaceful under Mao’s control than it was during his rule. They ate very little meat, and even less yogurt. “China used to be self-sufficient. In other words, it used to be the way Russia is now for food. And now, it is completely different.”

Luttwak pointed out that China’s leadership had failed to make sure that China continued expanding its local food sources. Despite recent laws preventing the conversion of agricultural land to housing or industry, China has continued to lose its agricultural land, primarily due to land erosion, industrialization, and urbanization.

Luttwak pointed out that Russia is in war since February 2022. “still people in Russia … eat the same food they ate six months ago, a year ago.”

Energy

Analysts may predict that China will be challenged to source energy resources in wartime. Luttwak stated that China imports large amounts of petroleum and liquified gas. “are not so important strategically as food is.”

Luttwak said that “China has a large domestic production of petroleum and gas.” He argued that China could use its energy resources for export trade to support its people in wartime. “And, in wartime, it is quite easy to ration some energy use.”

Dead Soldiers: The Past Can Inform the Future

Luttwak stated that the lowest number of Russians who had been killed in Ukraine was 25,000 as of December 2022. (Many estimates put this number at well above 100,000.) He claimed that Russians were responsible for the Russians “can lose 25,000 soldiers in several months and it makes no difference … Nobody is blocking the streets in Moscow in protest. It can continue like this for a long time.”

He then compared USSR’s 1968 invasion in Czechoslovakia with Russia’s 2022 invasion Ukraine.

Luttwak claims that the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia 1968. “able to put in 400,000 troops in the first 24 hours. And within 48 hours 800,000 troops.”

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 but made the huge mistake of using only 135,000 troops to attack a country that was 4.5 times larger than Czechoslovakia (633,700 square kilometers versus 127,000 square kilometers) and four-times more populous. In 1968, Czechoslovakia had a population of ten million. By 2022, Ukraine has a population of around 41 million. Luttwak thinks that Russia should have been planning to deploy four-times the amount of troops the USSR sent to Czechoslovakia. This would have been approximately 3,200,000.

The PLA would have to deploy at least 1,600,000. soldiers within 48 hours of an attack. This is because Taiwan’s population equals half that of Ukraine. As Russia struggles in Ukraine, the CCP would also struggle to sustain a sufficient amount of ground forces.

Post-Heroic Warfare

Luttwak stated, “if you want to fight the war, you need to have a supply of expendable soldiers, sailors, airmen … You cannot start the war if you’re not willing to tolerate casualties. Many years ago [1995], I published a theory called post-heroic warfare … And my argument was terribly simple, really simple. The wars of history were fought by spare male children.”

Luttwak’s post-heroic theory of warfare claims that “the acceptance of casualties has gone down everywhere. Let’s say … [on] June 6, 1944, on Omaha beach, there was a mistake … 2,200 Americans died in one morning … but the war continued.”

In “Vietnam, the United States lost 50,000 over 10 years  … and that was considered very traumatic …  And, of course, since that time, society has changed further. American families are smaller … So, tolerance for casualties has gone down a lot. Now it doesn’t mean, of course, that if you go into a place like Iraq or Afghanistan and you lose a few thousand, that’s okay. But what you can’t do is to lose 10,000 dead before breakfast and continue normally. That is the post-heroic change.”

Here are the statistics on Afghanistan and Iraq that support Luttwak’s argument. Almost 2,500 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan during the twenty-year war (2001–2020) and 4,400 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq during the seven-year war (2003–2010). Additional 3,800 U.S. contractors also were killed Almost 3,600 people were killed in Afghanistan, and nearly 3,600 in Iraq in the same time period.

China’s Lack of Sons

Luttwak used statistics to support his assertion that the United States is a “reliable nation”. “a post-heroic China.” The CCP established its first national office in 1980. “one-child policy,” This was until 2016. Most Chinese families only have one child today. Even though this trend is expected to change with new policies that encourage larger families, it will continue for decades.

In a model that has very few families, “there are no spare male children, then families and society and the culture and the government all have to reduce casualties.”

Luttwak shared a story of the clash between Indian and Chinese troops at the Galwan River Valley, Ladakh in 2020. Around 20 Indian soldiers died in the fighting. The dead were also given military funerals, one of which was a brigadier-general.

However, the CCP announced its killed in action eight months after the fighting. The CCP admitted that four soldiers had been killed, one officer and three enlisted. The interesting part of this story is what happened over the next seven months.

The PLA officer’s spouse, a local music teacher was promoted to a position of music professor at a major conservatory.

Special propaganda was also given to the three enlisted soldiers. One young soldier was made into a local hero. Another PLA soldier was also made into the “good guy” Who was said to have said “I will give my life to defend the motherland—every inch of the motherland; I’m here to defend every inch.” Of course, Ladakh was never part of China—an inconvenient truth.

The CCP presented third enlisted soldier to the CCP. “very traditional.” In a letter he wrote to his family before his death, he stated that “Dear Mom and Dad, I’m very sorry that I will not be there for you when you need me, but if there is an afterlife … then I hope to be there with you.'” Luttwak observed the absurdity in communist atheists referring to the afterlife.

The Chinese are, in short, the best. “were concerned about the public reaction. This entire operation was to reduce the emotional impact of saying that four people died.”

Tolerance for Casualties

Luttwak stated that it took the CCP eight months to figure out details for four soldiers. But how would the CCP deal with deaths of several thousand or tens, perhaps thousands of people? He estimated that 25,000–40,000 PLA soldiers would die in the first week of a conflict with Taiwan. Many would die while trying to land on Taiwanese ships and planes. These PLA casualties would result from Taiwan’s antiship systems and U.S. allied submarines.

Luttwak concluded China will not win a war within the short- to medium-term timeline, but it could start one. “I am not at all confident that the fact that China cannot fight a war, means that they will not try to fight a war.”

But he said that he had predicted that “if China starts a war, it will have to stop quite quickly.”

The views expressed in this article reflect the views only of the author. They do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.