Guam lies a little over 2000 miles from Shanghai as the missile flies.
Virtually the entire South China Sea is outlined by China's so-called nine-dash line, with a map of the line first printed in 1947 by China's Nationalist government and included in subsequent maps issued under the CCP
In a September 2008 U.S. diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, the US Embassy in Beijing reported that a senior Chinese government maritime law expert, Yin Wenqiang, had admitted he was unaware of the historical basis for the nine dashes.
In 2010, China started demanding that the world recognize its ownership of South China Sea. Note that the CIA map indicates that the nine-dash line ranges almost as far south as the southern border of Malaysia. The international community decided -- all countries except China -- that its claims have no basis under international law.
Several American officials told reporters in Beijing and Washington that Chinese officials had labeled the South China Sea a "core interest" along with Tibet, Taiwan, and Xinjiang, interests that could justify military intervention.
The English-language edition of the Global Times published an editorial that reinforced the South China Sea being added to China's core interests: "China will never waive its right to protect its core interest with military means."
Colonel Han Xudong, a professor at National Defense University, wrote in Outlook, a policy magazine: "China's comprehensive national strength, especially in military capabilities, is not yet enough to safeguard all of the core national interests. In this case, it's not a good idea to reveal the core national interests."
Michael Pillsbury's The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's secret strategy to replace America as the global superpower pointed out that China has a long-term plan for replacing the US as the dominant superpower. Its methods are often passive-aggressive, very different than the tactics of the US which automatically assume that everyone wants to live as Americans do.
The attractions of the South China Sea are many, but oil and gas deposits play a major role, with China being the largest net importer of crude oil and other liquids in the world.
Robert Haddick's Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific, portrayed itself as a comprehensive solution to the conflicts in the South China Sea, but it concentrates on the solutions offered by the military-industrial complex.
Haddick did an outstanding job of identifying the threats, but he dismissed outright the best solution.
He quoted Captain James Fanell, the U.S. Pacific Fleet's top intelligence officer: "Make no mistake, the PLA Navy is focused on war at sea and about sinking an opposing fleet ... The People's Republic of China's presence in the southern China sea prior to 1988 was nearly zero. Now, in 2013, they literally dominate it. They are taking control of maritime areas that have never before been administered or controlled in the last five thousand years by any regime called 'China.' And the PRC is now doing it in an area up to nine hundred miles from the mainland and up to dozens of miles off the coasts of other nations."
Haddick noted that China's anti-ship missile, the DF-21D with a range in excess of 932 miles, is a carrier killer for which the U.S. Navy has no defense. The DF-21D's cousin, the DF-26 IRBM, has a range in excess of 2200 miles and will be able to strike Guam, so the 5000 Marines being moved there won't be much more secure than ones still in Okinawa.
Is it merely a coincidence that the "nine hundred miles" Captain Fanell referenced is almost exactly the same as the range of the DF-21D?
The much vaunted F-35 only has a combat radius of 584 nautical miles (672 miles), which means that carriers would need to be located more than 200 miles inside the killing range of a DF-21D. The other option, refueling, would be suicidal given that tanker aircraft are sitting ducks.
China's Su-35 Flanker, the best non-stealth fighter in the world today, has a range of 2,237 / 2,800 miles, with the former number via internal fuel only and the latter number via the addition of two drop tanks.
US Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles have a range of 1000 miles, just matching the DF-21D. And China is rapidly improving its missile technology, so the range of its missiles will increase.
Haddick touted the upcoming LRS-B bomber as one solution to the problem However, its $550 million per plane cost, with that cost guaranteed to rise as it did for the F-35, makes it a weapon system we cannot afford, especially since we will need to eliminate other weapons systems to pay for it.
Haddick noted that the INF Treaty prohibits the U.S. from matching China's carrier killing missiles, with the treaty restricting both the U.S. and Russia, but not China.
Haddick proposed to spend trillions more on weapons systems, yet declared that a reduction in free trade is a non-starter because he believes in the fairy tale that free trade benefits the U.S. as much as it does other countries.
In fact, in the 80 years from 1930 to 2010, trade has grown by a factor of 50, but the U.S. economy has only grown by a factor of 14.
Proponents of NAFTA claimed that 200,000 jobs would be created, but as of two years ago, over 680,000 jobs have been lost.
Free trade makes CEOs wealthy, but it is quickly reducing the middle class.
China ships the U.S. much more than the US ships in return.
Haddick alluded to the disconnect: "Adopting a more assertive stance toward China is also likely to create frictions in the United States. The 2012 Pew poll showed [that] ... 70 percent of the general public perceived a loss of U.S. jobs to China as a very serious problem, a view held by only 15 percent of the business and trade leaders Pew interviewed."
That's because the aforementioned 15% of the population is raking in the loot from moving jobs overseas. Their only priority is their wallet.
But then Haddick revealed his bias with respect to American jobs: "No less than America's standard of living, the future of its relationships around the world, and its status as a great power are in the balance."
If he would only interview the millions of people who have lost jobs because of outsourcing, he would realize that most of that sentence is exactly backwards. If we closed our doors to Chinese imports, we would either bring jobs home or move Chinese factories to countries that are not rapidly building up their military to fight us.
We could quickly stop China from building DF-21D missiles and other weapons by closing our ports to Chinese imports, as 25% of all Chinese exports are sent here. China needs the US much more than we need China. China could either sign the INF Treaty or watch its economy implode.
All we'd have to do is tell Jeff Bezos, the Walton family, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other outsourcing parasites to stuff their concerns.