U.S. Think Tank Proposes New Strategy for China: Directly Tax All Merchant Ships, Install Container Missiles on the Deck!
At that time, the U.S. military will directly requisition all available merchant ships within its sphere of influence, install container-based missile launch systems on their decks, and even drive Army TELs (Transport-Erector-Launchers) directly onto cargo ships, forming a "floating missile fleet" to engage the Chinese Navy in a battle in the Western Pacific.
This reflects the growing strategic anxiety of the U.S. military in recent years—the traditional aircraft carrier strike groups are increasingly unable to approach the First Island Chain due to China's ever-growing Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities, and the current number of warships is severely insufficient.
Therefore, the Pentagon has started to look at civilian vessels. There are a huge number of global merchant ships, especially large cargo ships, ro-ro ships, and container ships controlled by the United States and its allies, which have long ranges, high carrying capacities, and high modification potential.
If they can be quickly converted into missile platforms during wartime, theoretically, they could rapidly expand long-range firepower delivery capabilities. For example, an 80,000-ton container ship could carry dozens of standard containers on its deck, each containing one "Tomahawk" cruise missile or LRASM anti-ship missile, instantly turning the entire ship into a mobile "missile warehouse."
However, the problem lies in the fact that merchant ships themselves have no combat capabilities. They lack radar, electronic warfare systems, fire control capabilities, and even basic situational awareness—according to industry insiders, "they are basically blind."
This approach is low-cost and numerous, but has extremely poor survivability—merchant ships lacking maneuvering avoidance capabilities and electronic countermeasures are almost "moving targets" in front of modern anti-ship missiles.
So why would the U.S. military seriously consider such a seemingly "poisonous drink to quench thirst" strategy? The reason is very realistic: high-end wars are about consumption, and U.S. defense production capacity and the number of ships cannot support a prolonged high-intensity naval war.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1852537242141769/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.