Even by my normal standards of obscurity that is an incomprehensible title but I promise you that it does have a meaning and an exceedingly important, and possibly crucial, meaning. As I write and you read, there is a battle raging and if its ferocity is so far confined only to "words, words, words" there is a distinct possibility that at some time in the near future it will evolve into rockets, missiles and even nuclear weapons. The 'battle' currently being waged is amongst American strategists and I will try and summarise the debate in so far as an ex-corporal understands it. However, I would urge those of you interested enough to read the full essays I link to at the end of this post.
ASB stands for AirSeaBattle and it sums up the current thinking at the Pentagon as to how they should cope with growing Chinese ambitions increasingly matched by growing military capability. The thinking is that the US needs to integrate its strategic forces, that is, missiles and electronics and all the various platforms that support them, into one combined force capable of penetrating the Chinese continent and destroying their C3 capability, that is, Command, Control, Communications. This force would not include nuclear capabilities which would be held back for use only as a second-strike possibility. The thinking is that the Chinese know they are utterly out-nucleared and in any exchange they would be obliterated and thus they would be extremely unlikey ever to use such weapons. This ASB strategy is essentially offensive, by which I do not imply that it would make the Americans the first-strike aggressors but only that if war breaks out then they would seek to take the initiative - and the fight - to the enemy. By and large, forcing your enemy to fight on your terms is thought highly desirable in operational circles!
A2/D2 stands for Anti-Access/Area Denial and, in military philosophy terms, it is a defensive strategy, in other words, the polar opposite to ABS. Proponents of this strategy suggest a mutual (if possible) agreement between the USA and the countries who, so to speak, 'border' with China across the east and south China seas; so that would include Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. The idea would be that in the event of war, access to those waters would be denied to the Chinese. The American submarine fleet, in particular, would be hugely increased in size and capability as a main enforcer of this restricted use. The mainpoint is that this strategy would deliberately avoid any penetration of Chinese land, sea or air space and thus lower enormously the risk of nuclear escalation. In fact, the one thing likely to provoke the Chinese to first use of their nuclear option would be any incoming threat, real or imagined, to to its existence.
Well, you pays your money and you takes your choice! However, I would urge you to read these links as an introduction. It's a grim subject but at least some people are trying to think ahead. Whether such thinking penetrates the Pentagon, let alone the White House remains a moot point.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/a2-ad-wars-necessity-9524
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/dont-sweat-airsea-battle-8804
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/sorry-airsea-battle-no-strategy-8846
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/countering-china%E2%80%99s-a2-ad-
challenge-9099
