I agree. PLA is indeed serious. What is less understood is that PLA is serious about fighting and winning WITHOUT nuclear weapons. This is derived directly from Mao - not something easy to ignore in PRC - and is retained because CCP does NOT trust PLA. Again - pure Mao because "political power grows from the barrel of a gun" and nukes are the ultimate "gun." While PLA uses a copy of the Soviet dual control system (with a political officer in command at every level of the military who must co-issue actual combat orders), even that is not enough to trust two officers with possession both of a nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. "Firing units" (literal) are NOT trained to mount or arm nuclear warheads, and have ZERO in inventory. Different units keep them - typically 20 or more km away - with transports, mounting techs and arming techs. Today they sometimes have an exercise in which a single warhead is mounted and armed - and immediately disarmed and unmounted - just to insure everyone knows how and that the hardware and software mate properly. A decision to issue a nuke, even for a mounting and arming exercise, must come from the CMC's Joint Operations Command Center.
For the first time, I see what seems to be a video from the Wall Street Journal. I need to work with written information. As it happens, I study PLAN bases and am generally familiar with the complex on Hainan.
FYI it is one of only two bases where a PLAN SSBN can be armed with a nuclear warhead. Because of unique CCP distruct of PLA and all its branches, in (peacetime) Alert Condition 1, these subs normally mount one (of upwards of twenty) conventional warheads, most of them weighing 500 kg. The nuclear warhead apparently weighs 470 kg (according to Congressional testimony). IF some nation attacked PRC with a nuclear weapon, AND IF the Joint Operations Control Center of the CMC decided it was appropriate to counterattack with a nuke (which is unlikely but possible), THEN a specific SSBN would be ordered to report to one of two (under mountain) locations where one of its missiles would have a standard warhead mounted. [An older, larger warhead cannot be fitted to any SSBN. PRC has remarkably old warhead designs, and they are the least efficient in service in the world. Nevertheless, t they are adequate for the deterrence purposes of PLA at this time.] The only doctrinal option to use a nuke appears to be "the nuclear-counterstrike campaign" (ALL known PLA doctrine is translated under Project Everest and published by CASI Publications). In such a campaign, even in a large-scale nuclear war, MOST attacks will be by CONVENITONAL warheads. Because the upwards of 20 specialized conventional warheads are capable of destroying almost every target. A nuke would be used more as a form of "messaging" - which PLA believes it is a master at - having probably excessive confidence it can control nuclear escalation in virtually every kind of war or crisis. The "message" would be approximately "we can and will use nukes if you don't stop behaving as you did just now, and we will use them on targets you won't like."
Normally, PLAN SSBNs, like every other branch of PLA, train to attack using non-nuclear warheads. Indeed, only a few of the very oldest land based missiles are limited to nuclear warheads, and these are NOT mounted either. NO PLA unit is EVER allowed to have both a nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. IF CMC decides to use a nuke, a DIFFERENT unit must transport one to a delivery unit, and then mount and arm it (the unit with the missile does not know how). And - never mind what is published in some references - there are NO nuclear bombs any more. These were withdrawn, and their fuel recycled into missile warheads (about 2009 if memory serves, and if expert Congressional testimony is accurate).
If you care about other readiness conditions in PLAN and in Rocket Force - Alert Condition Two is entered when the order is given to issue a nuke for an operational mission. This lasts until it is both transported to the missile unit and then is mounted and armed. The unit "owning" the nuke knows how to mount and arm, the unit "owning" missile does not know how to do either. This policy is called "negative control" - no one needs to be trusted with nukes able to fire because no one has any. Alert Condition Three occurs from the moment a warhead has been armed, after it was transported and mounted. It still requires a specific order from CMC to actually fire the missile. This can be delivered several ways, but because an SSBN is in one of two naval bases, both under mountains, this can be done by actual written orders (transmitted, usually, by fiber optic cables, although several other ways exist to transmit them).
Only once in history were nuclear warheads ever issued. This was during the so called Sino-Soviet Crisis, a little understood, two front war between the USSR and PRC (in which China lost 1200 sq km of territory, among other things). Chou stayed at the joint HQ building, while other leaders dispersed to different locations. Then, control was by underground telephone lines. I do not think any other Western scholar understands in detail what happened, but a fairly impressive summary can be found in McGeorge Bundy's Danger and Survival. He was granted access to records by President Carter to write that book. I unintentionally stumbled onto the details of the control system in an online public forum called FYEO. The discussion was suspended, but I got Jim Dunnigan (who by that time had bought control) to reinstate it - in case we could tease still more details out of the Chinese troll who we were engaged with. In that crisis, PRC didn't have any long range missiles, and it did NOT trust is H-6 bombers to get through Russian air defenses, so they had no nuclear mission at all. Later H-6's using modern standoff missiles are THEORETICALLY "dual capable" but, like the rest of the PLA, are almost certain to use conventional warheads, even if a "nuclear counterstrike campaign" has been authorized, for most targets. CMC's Joint Combined Arms Control Center would decide on a case by case basis if a nuke was actually to be use. Almost all Chinese nuclear warheads are 470 kg standard issue primitive two stage thermonuclear bombs. My figures are derived from Lewis, and are consistent with expert testimony before Congress, but NOT with official DoD estimates (which are - similar to Cold War era practice - based on assumptions and, if you believe the official "citations" - include tabloid sources!). I control my estimates by consideration of the fuel stockpile, the state of industry and its production (which was suspended in 1991), and the known details of recycling programs. The problem with official estimates is they use START rules - under which every missile has a nuke - but which rules never applied to PRC - and anyway - PRC NEVER mounts ANY nukes in peacetime - whatever our more senior generals (who do not read Chinese language materials) may assume.
Very interesting, and I assume factual. However, LST above seems to be a new presence on the porch. Can someone else vouch for his/her bona fides, and that this is some sort of misinformation/disinformation being planted to lull us into lessened concern about Chinese nuclear doctrine and capability?
This may be totally accurate, but "I saw it on the internet" no longer confirms anything.
See more recent post from LST, to which I replied:
"Sir- Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my ignorance.
I had missed some of your earlier posts on other topics, which led to my questioning. I am now convinced that you are a most welcome and authoritative source. Glad to have you here to share that expertise. "
China spent decades building the industrial base and infrastructure necessary to support a Navy and merchant marine.
We exported our jobs and factories in the name of free trade and quarterly dividends.
Oh, and by the way the numbers look even worse when you consider that China's Navy is concentrated in the Pacific Ocean whereas ours is scattered around the world.
The only thing we have going for us is our diversity.
I have been told repeatedly that our navy is better because our sailors can now choose their pronouns and dress in drag while playing tonsil hockey with their fellow dudes. I guess a really cool pronoun uttered vehemently by a BM2 in platform heels must be able to knock down an incoming hypersonic missile. Or something.
I had seen the WSJ bit several days ago, and pleased to see it again here on our favorite blog.....
Then, and now, I noted this......Hainan is simply to be expected.; just shoring up China's push on control of the South China Sea. ( I hope Viet Nam is taking hard notice at that, though)
What was more disconcerting to me was the activity at Ream Naval Base in Cambodia. and expansion into that "INDO" part of the greater future conflict area....
Back in 1970-71 I don't recall having to look over our shoulder much to Hainan Island while on NSAR/PIRAZ station. Times change. We haven't kept up with the times.
China is clearly on a deliberate path towards becoming world hegemon. Taking on the role of worlld hegemon requires a nation to also become the world's foremost military and economic power, which in turn requires that a nation also become the world's foremost industrial power.
The long process of America abandoning our role as world hegemon began forty years ago when the process of abandoning our industrial base began in earnest. Other factors contributed to the process of abandonment such as needlessly invading Iraq at huge cost in lives and treasure without any clear hegemonic benefit to ourselves or to our allies.
Once the Chinese have fully assumed the role of world hegemon, they must not make the same mistakes America has made in the last forty years -- allowing their industrial base to be exported to other nations and applying their military power recklessly in conflicts which do not threaten their true long term hegemonic and economic interests.
All economic data coming out of China over the last two years indicates, China is nowhere close to being the leading economic power in the world. Given their long-term demographic problems, they probably never will be.
What are you smoking, Billy, so I know never to touch it? Russia is 12th in terms of nominal GDP, and maybe 6th in terms of PPP GDP, and is well behind Japan in both.
I am curious: Tom Holsinger at Strategy Page (I know, I know) writes a very different story of Chinese military capability. In his telling, it's the endemic corruption that has emasculated the PLA due to the lack of spare parts, shoddy construction, and so on. He writes that the PLA and PLAN are unable to take Taiwan, now or in the near future. He then outlines how China would suffer from a US Navy enforced embargo on Chinese ports.
Perhaps one can somehow reconcile the aggressive nature of the Chinese leadership and PLA, as detailed in a number of the Commander's posts, with Mr. Holsinger's outline?
Who is running anti-corruption purges and who hasn’t fired anyone over the afghanistan rout, LCS, the collapse of submarine maintenance, and that we are scrapping more ships than we are building?
Also, is ratio of admirals to ships in the PLAN closer to the 1.2 of the modern USN or to the 0.04 the USN had the last time it won a serious naval war?
It's an opinion piece. Maybe he is seeing through the glass clearly and the rest of us darkly. If the Houthi's in the Red Sea are any indication of the Navy's capacity to maintain effective control in a realtively small body of water against a non-state actor, I believe the assumption that the Navy could maintain an effective naval blockage against China is a Taiwan conflict, is wishful thinking. I hope he is right and I am wrong, but I wouldn't bet it in Vegas. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlog/articles/2024061002057.aspx
When has anyone maintained an effective blockade against a force with nuclear subs with anti-ship missiles? Or even diesel subs with ASMs? Not saying it won’t happen, but can you imagine what happens in the white house when the news shows 20 miles of pristine beach covered with oil from the US sinking a crude carrier?
The closest reference would be the 200 nm sea & air blockade that the British establlished during the Falklands war - five SSNs (Spartan, Spendid, Conquerer, Valiant, & Couragous) and one SSK (Onyx). The Onyx was not ASM capable. The Argentine opposition would be limited to the ARA San Luis, an SSK with torpedoes only. Not exactly your hypothetical apples-to-apples comparison, since there isn't one, but the closest we have in naval history. The San Luis was forced to operate in the open ocean of the South Atlantic rather than coastal littorals which would have been more favorable to SSK stealthiness. After the war, Argentine admirals would go on the record crediting the RN with establishing and maintaining an effective blockade. Whether Hollinger's opinion is correct or not, maintaining a naval blockade against the PLAN would be a bloody mess.
Additive Edit:
Continuing the comparison - In 1982 the RN had 115 warship in commission and 60 auxilliaries. Today the US has just under 300 warships. (Welcome Terrible 20's) Great circle distance Heathrow to Port Stanley - 7800 nm and Los Angeles to Hong Kong - 7200 nm.
Will the PLAN have 2.5x the capabilites in their backyard compared to Argentina?
All variations of my name search in every search engine in the world, in every language. Almost all say I work for the China Aerospace Studies Institute. But at least one says I write for the U.S. Naval Institute, which is also true. You may download my book on the PLAAF (the Brigidization of the PLA Air Force) for free at CASI Publications, or ask master sergeant Salisbury to mail you a hard copy. I also write for a Japanese think tank and for ROC intelligence. I don't limit my studies to Chinese air forces because I cannot build a simulation of a fight without considering all arms, logistics and the doctrine and planning of the enemy. [CASI publishes translations of PLA doctrine - see Project Everest series publications - which are massive - taking up several feet on my bookshelves.]
Sir- Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my ignorance.
I had missed some of your earlier posts on other topics, which led to my questioning. I am now convinced that you are a most welcome and authoritative source. Glad to have you here to share that expertise.
Obviously, they are serious, and we are not.
Worse, they are capable. We are not.
I agree. PLA is indeed serious. What is less understood is that PLA is serious about fighting and winning WITHOUT nuclear weapons. This is derived directly from Mao - not something easy to ignore in PRC - and is retained because CCP does NOT trust PLA. Again - pure Mao because "political power grows from the barrel of a gun" and nukes are the ultimate "gun." While PLA uses a copy of the Soviet dual control system (with a political officer in command at every level of the military who must co-issue actual combat orders), even that is not enough to trust two officers with possession both of a nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. "Firing units" (literal) are NOT trained to mount or arm nuclear warheads, and have ZERO in inventory. Different units keep them - typically 20 or more km away - with transports, mounting techs and arming techs. Today they sometimes have an exercise in which a single warhead is mounted and armed - and immediately disarmed and unmounted - just to insure everyone knows how and that the hardware and software mate properly. A decision to issue a nuke, even for a mounting and arming exercise, must come from the CMC's Joint Operations Command Center.
For the first time, I see what seems to be a video from the Wall Street Journal. I need to work with written information. As it happens, I study PLAN bases and am generally familiar with the complex on Hainan.
FYI it is one of only two bases where a PLAN SSBN can be armed with a nuclear warhead. Because of unique CCP distruct of PLA and all its branches, in (peacetime) Alert Condition 1, these subs normally mount one (of upwards of twenty) conventional warheads, most of them weighing 500 kg. The nuclear warhead apparently weighs 470 kg (according to Congressional testimony). IF some nation attacked PRC with a nuclear weapon, AND IF the Joint Operations Control Center of the CMC decided it was appropriate to counterattack with a nuke (which is unlikely but possible), THEN a specific SSBN would be ordered to report to one of two (under mountain) locations where one of its missiles would have a standard warhead mounted. [An older, larger warhead cannot be fitted to any SSBN. PRC has remarkably old warhead designs, and they are the least efficient in service in the world. Nevertheless, t they are adequate for the deterrence purposes of PLA at this time.] The only doctrinal option to use a nuke appears to be "the nuclear-counterstrike campaign" (ALL known PLA doctrine is translated under Project Everest and published by CASI Publications). In such a campaign, even in a large-scale nuclear war, MOST attacks will be by CONVENITONAL warheads. Because the upwards of 20 specialized conventional warheads are capable of destroying almost every target. A nuke would be used more as a form of "messaging" - which PLA believes it is a master at - having probably excessive confidence it can control nuclear escalation in virtually every kind of war or crisis. The "message" would be approximately "we can and will use nukes if you don't stop behaving as you did just now, and we will use them on targets you won't like."
Normally, PLAN SSBNs, like every other branch of PLA, train to attack using non-nuclear warheads. Indeed, only a few of the very oldest land based missiles are limited to nuclear warheads, and these are NOT mounted either. NO PLA unit is EVER allowed to have both a nuclear warhead and the means to deliver it. IF CMC decides to use a nuke, a DIFFERENT unit must transport one to a delivery unit, and then mount and arm it (the unit with the missile does not know how). And - never mind what is published in some references - there are NO nuclear bombs any more. These were withdrawn, and their fuel recycled into missile warheads (about 2009 if memory serves, and if expert Congressional testimony is accurate).
If you care about other readiness conditions in PLAN and in Rocket Force - Alert Condition Two is entered when the order is given to issue a nuke for an operational mission. This lasts until it is both transported to the missile unit and then is mounted and armed. The unit "owning" the nuke knows how to mount and arm, the unit "owning" missile does not know how to do either. This policy is called "negative control" - no one needs to be trusted with nukes able to fire because no one has any. Alert Condition Three occurs from the moment a warhead has been armed, after it was transported and mounted. It still requires a specific order from CMC to actually fire the missile. This can be delivered several ways, but because an SSBN is in one of two naval bases, both under mountains, this can be done by actual written orders (transmitted, usually, by fiber optic cables, although several other ways exist to transmit them).
Only once in history were nuclear warheads ever issued. This was during the so called Sino-Soviet Crisis, a little understood, two front war between the USSR and PRC (in which China lost 1200 sq km of territory, among other things). Chou stayed at the joint HQ building, while other leaders dispersed to different locations. Then, control was by underground telephone lines. I do not think any other Western scholar understands in detail what happened, but a fairly impressive summary can be found in McGeorge Bundy's Danger and Survival. He was granted access to records by President Carter to write that book. I unintentionally stumbled onto the details of the control system in an online public forum called FYEO. The discussion was suspended, but I got Jim Dunnigan (who by that time had bought control) to reinstate it - in case we could tease still more details out of the Chinese troll who we were engaged with. In that crisis, PRC didn't have any long range missiles, and it did NOT trust is H-6 bombers to get through Russian air defenses, so they had no nuclear mission at all. Later H-6's using modern standoff missiles are THEORETICALLY "dual capable" but, like the rest of the PLA, are almost certain to use conventional warheads, even if a "nuclear counterstrike campaign" has been authorized, for most targets. CMC's Joint Combined Arms Control Center would decide on a case by case basis if a nuke was actually to be use. Almost all Chinese nuclear warheads are 470 kg standard issue primitive two stage thermonuclear bombs. My figures are derived from Lewis, and are consistent with expert testimony before Congress, but NOT with official DoD estimates (which are - similar to Cold War era practice - based on assumptions and, if you believe the official "citations" - include tabloid sources!). I control my estimates by consideration of the fuel stockpile, the state of industry and its production (which was suspended in 1991), and the known details of recycling programs. The problem with official estimates is they use START rules - under which every missile has a nuke - but which rules never applied to PRC - and anyway - PRC NEVER mounts ANY nukes in peacetime - whatever our more senior generals (who do not read Chinese language materials) may assume.
Very interesting, and I assume factual. However, LST above seems to be a new presence on the porch. Can someone else vouch for his/her bona fides, and that this is some sort of misinformation/disinformation being planted to lull us into lessened concern about Chinese nuclear doctrine and capability?
This may be totally accurate, but "I saw it on the internet" no longer confirms anything.
As Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
See more recent post from LST, to which I replied:
"Sir- Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my ignorance.
I had missed some of your earlier posts on other topics, which led to my questioning. I am now convinced that you are a most welcome and authoritative source. Glad to have you here to share that expertise. "
China spent decades building the industrial base and infrastructure necessary to support a Navy and merchant marine.
We exported our jobs and factories in the name of free trade and quarterly dividends.
Oh, and by the way the numbers look even worse when you consider that China's Navy is concentrated in the Pacific Ocean whereas ours is scattered around the world.
The only thing we have going for us is our diversity.
don't forget equity and inclusion along with a heaping side order of virtue signaling.
Equity means payback not equality and you aren’t included.
Yeah I kind of figured that given my abysmally low Intersectionality Index score. It's causing me no end of sleepless nights.
I have been told repeatedly that our navy is better because our sailors can now choose their pronouns and dress in drag while playing tonsil hockey with their fellow dudes. I guess a really cool pronoun uttered vehemently by a BM2 in platform heels must be able to knock down an incoming hypersonic missile. Or something.
I had seen the WSJ bit several days ago, and pleased to see it again here on our favorite blog.....
Then, and now, I noted this......Hainan is simply to be expected.; just shoring up China's push on control of the South China Sea. ( I hope Viet Nam is taking hard notice at that, though)
What was more disconcerting to me was the activity at Ream Naval Base in Cambodia. and expansion into that "INDO" part of the greater future conflict area....
Don’t kid yourself, it also hides a massive point of embarcation in plain view.
Hainan has pretty much always been a military strong point for the PLA-N
Taiwan will be a better, Blue Water, location
Once they clear the wreckage.
The upper reaches of Yankee station at one time.
Back in 1970-71 I don't recall having to look over our shoulder much to Hainan Island while on NSAR/PIRAZ station. Times change. We haven't kept up with the times.
China is clearly on a deliberate path towards becoming world hegemon. Taking on the role of worlld hegemon requires a nation to also become the world's foremost military and economic power, which in turn requires that a nation also become the world's foremost industrial power.
The long process of America abandoning our role as world hegemon began forty years ago when the process of abandoning our industrial base began in earnest. Other factors contributed to the process of abandonment such as needlessly invading Iraq at huge cost in lives and treasure without any clear hegemonic benefit to ourselves or to our allies.
Once the Chinese have fully assumed the role of world hegemon, they must not make the same mistakes America has made in the last forty years -- allowing their industrial base to be exported to other nations and applying their military power recklessly in conflicts which do not threaten their true long term hegemonic and economic interests.
All economic data coming out of China over the last two years indicates, China is nowhere close to being the leading economic power in the world. Given their long-term demographic problems, they probably never will be.
Maybe like Russia (who just overtook Japan for 4th) China just needs to be sanctioned to grow its economy.
What are you smoking, Billy, so I know never to touch it? Russia is 12th in terms of nominal GDP, and maybe 6th in terms of PPP GDP, and is well behind Japan in both.
You need to get out of your bubble, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/russia-overtakes-japan-to-become-the-fourth-largest-economy-in-the-world-in-ppp-terms/ar-BB1nCnto
Two A-6 intruder were shot down around there in 72 I believe.
I am curious: Tom Holsinger at Strategy Page (I know, I know) writes a very different story of Chinese military capability. In his telling, it's the endemic corruption that has emasculated the PLA due to the lack of spare parts, shoddy construction, and so on. He writes that the PLA and PLAN are unable to take Taiwan, now or in the near future. He then outlines how China would suffer from a US Navy enforced embargo on Chinese ports.
Perhaps one can somehow reconcile the aggressive nature of the Chinese leadership and PLA, as detailed in a number of the Commander's posts, with Mr. Holsinger's outline?
Have you heard of the LCS and Fat Leonard?
Oh yes! LCS is a disaster and Fat Leonard was, for me at least, vastly entertaining.
I suppose it's a question of 1) scale and 2) ability to be honest, look in the mirror, and fix the things that are wrong. Which side is better?
Who is running anti-corruption purges and who hasn’t fired anyone over the afghanistan rout, LCS, the collapse of submarine maintenance, and that we are scrapping more ships than we are building?
Also, is ratio of admirals to ships in the PLAN closer to the 1.2 of the modern USN or to the 0.04 the USN had the last time it won a serious naval war?
It's an opinion piece. Maybe he is seeing through the glass clearly and the rest of us darkly. If the Houthi's in the Red Sea are any indication of the Navy's capacity to maintain effective control in a realtively small body of water against a non-state actor, I believe the assumption that the Navy could maintain an effective naval blockage against China is a Taiwan conflict, is wishful thinking. I hope he is right and I am wrong, but I wouldn't bet it in Vegas. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlog/articles/2024061002057.aspx
When has anyone maintained an effective blockade against a force with nuclear subs with anti-ship missiles? Or even diesel subs with ASMs? Not saying it won’t happen, but can you imagine what happens in the white house when the news shows 20 miles of pristine beach covered with oil from the US sinking a crude carrier?
The closest reference would be the 200 nm sea & air blockade that the British establlished during the Falklands war - five SSNs (Spartan, Spendid, Conquerer, Valiant, & Couragous) and one SSK (Onyx). The Onyx was not ASM capable. The Argentine opposition would be limited to the ARA San Luis, an SSK with torpedoes only. Not exactly your hypothetical apples-to-apples comparison, since there isn't one, but the closest we have in naval history. The San Luis was forced to operate in the open ocean of the South Atlantic rather than coastal littorals which would have been more favorable to SSK stealthiness. After the war, Argentine admirals would go on the record crediting the RN with establishing and maintaining an effective blockade. Whether Hollinger's opinion is correct or not, maintaining a naval blockade against the PLAN would be a bloody mess.
Additive Edit:
Continuing the comparison - In 1982 the RN had 115 warship in commission and 60 auxilliaries. Today the US has just under 300 warships. (Welcome Terrible 20's) Great circle distance Heathrow to Port Stanley - 7800 nm and Los Angeles to Hong Kong - 7200 nm.
Will the PLAN have 2.5x the capabilites in their backyard compared to Argentina?
All variations of my name search in every search engine in the world, in every language. Almost all say I work for the China Aerospace Studies Institute. But at least one says I write for the U.S. Naval Institute, which is also true. You may download my book on the PLAAF (the Brigidization of the PLA Air Force) for free at CASI Publications, or ask master sergeant Salisbury to mail you a hard copy. I also write for a Japanese think tank and for ROC intelligence. I don't limit my studies to Chinese air forces because I cannot build a simulation of a fight without considering all arms, logistics and the doctrine and planning of the enemy. [CASI publishes translations of PLA doctrine - see Project Everest series publications - which are massive - taking up several feet on my bookshelves.]
Sir- Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for my ignorance.
I had missed some of your earlier posts on other topics, which led to my questioning. I am now convinced that you are a most welcome and authoritative source. Glad to have you here to share that expertise.
How about we focus on finding Russians submarines off the coast of Florida first..🤔
Let me recommend an Op-Ed on gCaptain - Perhaps relevant to the subject matter - certainly worth a read, I would suggest.
https://gcaptain.com/army-lynchpin-myth-pacific/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-9927ba5802-170552099&mc_cid=9927ba5802&mc_eid=859186b276